Revising the Monstrous: Du Plessis' Short History of Prodigies and London Culture in 1730

RevisingtheMonstrous:DuPlessis' ShortHistoryofProdigiesandLondon Culture in 1730 JAMESAUBREY 1hehistoryofmonsterswasdescribedas"inexhaustible"byRudolf Wittkowerinhis1942surveyoftheformstakenbythe"marvelous" racesandprodigiesconceivedbytheancientGreeksandimpressedon "theEuropeanmind."1Nevertheless,asifthetopichadbecome exhaustedwhenassumptionschangedintheearlymodernera,Wittko- werhardlyventuresinhisstudybeyondtheseventeenthcentury.Nor doeshediscussthehistoryofideasabouthowmonstersweregenerated, eventhoughoneideaisasoldasanyofthestoriesherehearses:thatan excitedmother-to-becouldmarkherfetuswitharepresentationofwhat shehadimaginedduringpregnancyorevenduringconception.Beliefin thisidearemainedcurrentlongenoughtoprovidethemeansinJoseph AndrewsbywhichMr.Wilsonrecognizeshisson:fromthestrawberry markonhisleftbreast"whichhismotherhadgivenhimbylongingfor thatfruit."2Indeed,thiskindofexplanationforthebirthofachildwith unexpectedskincolorisstilloccasionallyheardinthetwentiethcentury, eventhoughthefolkloreparadigmsaccompanyingithavebeenlargely replacedbythescientificparadigmsofteratologyandgenetics.3 Thissupposedpotentialofthematernalimaginationwasanaspectof thestilldominantassumptionintheearlyeighteenthcenturythatin humanreproductionthefemalecontinuedwhatthemalehadbegun— notonlyasnursingmotherorpregnantmother-to-bebutalsoatthe 75 76 / AUBREY momentofconception.Thereweretwocompetingtheoriesaboutwhat happenedatthatmoment:pre-formationismandepigenisis.Preformationistsbelievedthatthemaleactivatedapre -existingbeing,orhomun- culus,atconception;epigenisistsbelievedthatthemaleinitiatedthe developmentofunformedmatterintothegermofabeing.Bothpara- digmswerefundamentallyinaccord,however,withaprincipleasserted byAristotle:"[T]hecontributionwhichthefemalemakestotheembryos whentheyarebeing'set'andconstitutedisondifferentlinesfromthatof themale;inotherwords,themalecontributestheprincipleofmovement andthefemalecontributesthematerial."4Aristotlegoesontocompare themaletoacarpenter,orhouse-builder,usingmaterialsprovidedbythe femalewho,implicitly,proceedstofinishthework—andsometimesto deform it.5 Thepossibilitythatthemothercouldmartheworkwouldbecomean antifeministcommonplaceofvariousbooksaboutmonstrousbirths,but thevalidityofthisviewwasnolongertakenforgrantedintheearly eighteenthcentury.Attemptstoreconcilepreformationistandepigenisist ideaswitheachotherandwiththediscoveriesofearlybiologicalresearch constitutewhatBarbaraStaffordhascalledthe"quarrelofthemon- sters."6In1727commonlyreceivedideasaboutthethegenerationof monstersunderwentadirectattackfromLondonphysicianJames AugustusBlondelinatreatisecalledTheStrengthofImaginationin PregnantWomenExamin'd:AndtheOpiniontheMarksandDeformi- tiesinChildrenArisefromThence,DemonstratedtobeaVulgarError. Blondeldismissedasabsurdthewidelyacceptedbeliefthatthemother couldcommunicateherthoughtstothemindofafetuswhich,heargued, haditsownmindandorgansaswellasaseparatecirculatorysystem.7 Formorethan100pageshecritiquedtheevidencetraditionallycitedfor maternalmarking,withparticular,polemicalfocusonclaimspresented inDeMorbisCutaneis:ATreatiseonDiseasesIncidenttotheSkin,a 1712treatisebyanotherLondondoctor,DanielTurner.Turner'sreplyto Blondelwaspublishedin1728,andBlondel'scounter-replyin1729. AlthoughBlondel'sviewsareneitherperfectlyconsistentnorreliable,the existenceofthedebateisevidenceofdoubtscirculatingaboutancient medicalwisdom.Andasideasaboutconception,pregnancy,andchild- birthwerebeingcontested,conventionalattitudestowardachildconsid- eredtobe"monstrous"alsocameunderpressuretochange.Asdebates increasinglybecamebasedonmedicaldiscourse,thebirthofamonster waslesslikelytobeseenasaportentofdivinewrath. Thequarrelofthelate1720sprovidesarevealingcontextforanother documentcomposedinLondonatthesametimebyanobscureFrenchman ,JamesDuPlessis.WhetherornotDuPlessisknewoftheongoing DuPlessis'ShortHistoryofProdigies/77 battleofthemedicalbooks,hewassubjecttocontemporarycultural pressuresontraditionalthinkingandconventionalevidenceashe adaptedtraditionalsourcematerialonmonstersforhisowntreatise, finishedin1730andtitledAShortHistoryofHumanProdigieuses, MonstrousBirthsofDwarfs,Sleepers,Giants,StrongMen,Hermaphro- dites,NumerousBirths,andExtreamOldAgedC*DuPlessis'title indicatesthenatureoftheproject:acatalogueofdeparturesfromthe ordinaryformsofhumanlife,markedsometimesbyphysicaldifferences (inthecasesofhermaphroditesandgiants),sometimesbybehavioral differences(thecomatose"sleepers"),andsometimesmerelybysome- one'shavingdonesomethingordinarytoanextraordinarydegree(for example,givingbirthtonumerousoffspring,orlivingtoanadvanced age).AShortHistoryofHumanProdigieswasneverpublished,butthe manuscriptintheBritishLibraryreflectsaspectsofLondon'scultural climateinthelate1720s.Mostinterestingisanapparentrespecttoward theprodigiouscreaturesasindividualswithdignity,ratherthanmerelyas monstersexemplifyingothernessinsomelargerscheme. DuPlessisprefaceshisworkwithalongletterpleadingwithits addressee,anunnamed"HonouredSir,"topurchasetheattachedmanu- scriptoutofcharity.Hedescribeshimselfasonewhohastraveledand collectedmorethan1,000booksinhisyoungerdaysbutwhonowhas beenforcedbycircumstancesto"takeagarrettolodgemyselfandgoods ...beingquitemoneyless."The"HonouredSir"wasevidentlySirHans Sloane,FirstPhysiciantoGeorgeIIandPresidentoftheRoyalCollege ofPhysiciansfrom1719-35;AlexanderPopeoncedescribedSloaneas ownerof"thefinestcollectioninEuropeofnaturalcuriosities."His interestsmusthavemadehimseemalikelyprospectivepurchaserofthe manuscriptDuPlessiswasdesperatetosell.Sloanedid,indeed,acquire the work.9 DuPlessis'workis163pageslongandmostremarkableforits36 paintedillustrations.Thefirstone,forexample,istitled"AMonstrous ChildwithTwoHeads"anddepictsaninfantdisplayedwithadignity thatDuPlessis'narrativeunderthepicturebelies(Figure1).In1680 whenDuPlessiswasfifteenandstilllivinginFrance,agentlewoman, MadamedeSouville,rentedaroominhisfamily'shouseforherlyingin. Sheboreamalechildwith"twoheadsandaroundexcresenceofa spongeneckbetweenthetwoheadsf;]hewasborndead."DuPlessis relatesdetailsthatmakethiseventsoundmoreplausiblethanmanyof theothershesubsequentlydescribes.Henamesthemother,forexample, anddescribesherasagentlewomanmarriedtothelordofthevillageof Souville.HeexplainsthatshemovedintotheDuPlessishouseasshe approachedtermsothatshecouldbeclosetotheneighboringmidwife 78 /AUBREY Figure1."AMonstrousChildwith2Heads."FromJamesDuPlessis'ShortHistoryof HumanProdigies(unpublishedmanuscriptdated1730),notpaginated[page2].ReproducedwithpermissionoftheBritishLibrary . DuPlessis'ShortHistoryofProdigies/79 andtoa"famousDoctorofPhysicandSurgeon"marriedtoDuPlessis' auntandalsolivingwiththem.MadamedeSouvillesupposedlytoldDu Plessis'mother—whetherbeforeorafterthebirthisnotclear—thatdur- ingherpregnancyshehadlookedatanalmanacandbecamea"veryfond admirer"ofanillustrated"historyofsuchabirthofachild,thevery sameformandfigure"thatherownbi-cephalicchildwouldhave.Weare toldthat"herhusband...takingnotice...tooktheAlmanackfrom her,andburntit,butsheprocuredanotherandsoathird,whichhealso tookfromher[;]thislastedtillherlongingwasoverandthemischiefwas done[,]whenshewasverybigandnearthetimeofherdelivery."Du Plessisrecalls,"Thisaccidentwaskeptverysecretandthechildbeinga monsterandnothavingbeenchristenedwaswrappedinacleanlinen clothandputinalittlewoodenboxandburiedveryprivately,inapartof ourgarden."DuPlessisreportsthatwhenheaskedhisparentsaboutthe matter,"Ireceivedagreatslapontheface;Iwasforcedtoleaveof[f]my curiosity."Onwhatbasis,then,didtheadultDuPlessismakehispaint- ingofthechild-monster?Hesaysthathefurtivelydugupwhathadbeen buriedinthegardentoseeforhimself.Headdsthatonedaysubse- quentlyhefoundhisuncle'sroomopenandsaw"theforesaidAlmanack withtherelationasIgiveithere."Itmusthavebeenthedoctor'sown copysinceMadameSouville'scopieshadbeenburned.Thepainshe takestoestablishhimselfasafirst-handwitnessarere-emphasizedwith hisconcludingphrase,"seenbyJamesParisDuplessis."10Thereisnoth- ingsupernaturalaboutthismonster—ifoneacceptsas"natural"the powerofthematernalimaginationto(mis)shapethefetus;furthermore, theconfessionaldetailsmakethenarrativesoundconvincingintheman- nerofanautobiography.Theplausibilityofthemanuscriptmightmore aptlybecomparedtoaDefoefiction,however,forinsubsequentparts ofthemanuscriptDuPlessiswillmakefallaciousclaimstohaveseen first-handothermonstersthathehasinsteadappropriatedfromearlier books. Twosuchderivativemonstersaredescribedonlyafewpagesfurther intothetext.Oneis"AMonstrousHairyandMoldyWoman"(Figure2) andtheother"AspottedNegroPrince"(Figure3).Ofthefirst,Du Plessissaysthefollowing: ThisMonstrouswomanwasaboutthirtyyearsoldwhenIJamesParis sawherinLondon[;]shehadaveryhansomFace[and]BlackHairon herHead...[;]allherRightSidewasfromtheShouldertwoherKnee allhairy[,]theLegandHandofafine,Smooth,whiteColour,without Hair;theotherHalfSideofherwasapureWhite,Soft,Smoothand WhiteSkinbutalloverBestrowedwithMoldsofaReddishCollour, withafewhairsuponEachofthem[,]fromtheShoulderdowntothe 80 / AUBREY Figure2."AMonstrousHairyandMoldyWoman."FromDuPlessis'AShortHistoryof HumanProdigies,[page10].ReproducedwithpermissionoftheBritishLibrary. DuPlessis'ShortHistoryofProdigies/81 Figure3."ASpottedNegroPrince."FromDuPlessis'AShortHistoryofHumanProdi- gies,[pageH].ReproducedwithpermissionoftheBritishLibrary. 82 / AUBREY Knee,herhandandfootasthemontheOtherSide,andsobehindalike as before, [p. 10] DuPlessisoffersnoaccountofherbirthorspeculationaboutthecauses ofherdeformity—ifdeformityisevenanappropriatewordtodescribe thesuperficialcharacteristicsofhirsutenessandskindiscoloration." Onthepagefollowingtherepresentationofthehairywoman,Du Plessisdescribesanothersupposedmonster,whomhecallsa"spotted negro."Thefigure'sdifferencesfromimpliednormsareagainsuperficial ratherthanstructural: ANegroPrince,SonofHanjasoncapon,KingofYelhocomia,in Guiney,wastakenbythePiratesattheageof8yearsoldandMadehis EscapeFromthemUpontheCoastofVirginia,wharehewas Entertain'dbyColonelTaylorandthereLearnedtoSpeakprettygood English.WhoseBodyisofaJetBlack,IntermixedWithaClearand BeautifulWhite,SpottedallOver.HewasSoldinLondonandShow'd Publicklyattheageof10Yearsin1690.SeenthenbyJamesParisand AgainintheYear1725.[p.11] Itisnoaccidentthatthesetwo"monsters"appearonsuccessivepages intheDuPlessismanuscript,fortheyarederivedfromarelatedpairof creatureswhoaredepictedtogetherinatleasttwosixteenth-century booksaboutmonsters,bookswhichthemselvesdrewontraditionallore asfarbackasPlinyandHerodotus. Thefirstbook,CertainSecretWondersofNature,publishedin1560 byPierreBoiastuau,offersvariousexplanationsfor"monstrouschild- bearing"including"theinfluenceofthestars,""thesuperabundanceor defaultandcorruptionoftheseedandwomb,"or"anardentandobsti- nateimagination,whichtheWomanhath,whilstsheconceivesthe child."Boiastuauillustratesthislastcausewithtwoancientanecdotes andapicture(Figure4): Damascenusagraveauthordothassurethistobetrue,thatbeing presentwithCharles[the]EmperorandkingofBohemia,therewas broughttohimamaid,roughandcoveredwithhairlikeabear,the whichthemotherhadbroughtforthinsohideousanddeformeda shapebyhavingtoomuchregardtothepictureofS[aint]Johnclothed withabeast'sskin,thewhichwastiedormadefastcontinuallyduring herconceptionatherbed'sfeet.BythelikemeansHippocratessaveda princessaccusedofadultery,forthatshewasdeliveredofachildblack likeanEthiopian,herhusbandbeingofafairandwhitecomplexion. [She]bythepersuasionofHippocrates,wasabsolvedandpardoned, forthatthechildwaslikeuntoa[pictureofa]Moor,accustomablytied atherbed.12 DuPlessis'ShortHistoryofProdigies/83 Figure4.BlackChild,HirsuteWoman,andtheKingofBohemia. FromPierreBoiastuau'sCertainSecretWondersofNature(1569), 12. Bothstoriesattributethe"monstrous"birthstothemothers'imagina- tions,eachofwhichhasbeenaffectedbywhatthemotherwaslookingat duringthesupposedmomentofconception,whenherhusband implantedhis"seed." Boiastuau'scontemporaryAmbroiseParéexplainstheprocessinhis treatiseOftheGenerationofMan:"[F]orthemostpartithappeneththat thechildrenaremorelikeuntothefatherthanthemother,becausethat inthetimeofcopulation,themindofthewomanismorefixedonher husband,thanthemindofthehusbandon,ortowardshiswife:forin thetimeofcopulationorconception,theforms,orthelikenessesof thosethingsthatareconceivedorkeptinmindaretransportedand impressedinthechildorissue."13 84 / AUBREY Paré'sreasoningseemsopposedtothetraditionalbeliefthatthemind ofthefemale,likeherso-called"rollingeye,"hadlesspowerandcapabilitythanthemindofthemale .However,thelesserfixednesshererefers nottoasituationrequiringintellectualconcentrationbut,rather,toone requiringanunintellectualpayingofattention;inthatsituation,the femalewasevidentlythoughttobealltoocapableoffocusingonany objectthatmightattractherpassinginterest.Thistendencycouldhave direconsequencesduringsexualintercourse.Parédoesnotexplainhis comment,buthehasonthepreviouspagereiteratedtheAristotelian viewoffemaleanatomyandinferiority,notingthatthe"testiclesof woman"contrastedwiththoseofthemaleare"morecold,less,weakand feeble";theyhadlesscapacitytogeneratethevitalheatthoughtneces- saryforconception.EvidentlyParébelievedthatawoman'smindwas likewiseweak,butthatduringperfectsexualintercourseitwouldbe "morefixedonherhusband"thanherhusband'sonherbecauseher attentionwouldbefocusedonhim,havingbeenarrestedbyhisstronger malepresence,inakindofpassivedevotion.Ifhermindshouldwander, however,amonstercouldbegenerated.Paréindicatesthatthisprinciple extendsbeyondconceptionintopregnancy,sothatpregnantwomen's "imaginations"—anapparentreferencetoamentalfacultythatresponds withfeelingtowhatisseen—iftheyshouldbe"stronglymoved,should makethelikeimpressionintheinfantstheybareintheirwombs."14 AswithBoiastuau,Paréinhis1573bookdescribesmanyothercauses ofmonsters,rangingfromGod'spunishmenttotheDevil'swickedness, from"moreseedincopulationthanisnecessarytothegenerationofone body"tothe"confusionofseedsofadifferentkind"resultingfrom human"copulationwithbeasts."15Theresultsareasdiverseasthe causes,varyingfromtwo-headedbabiestoanimal-humancombinations toathree-eyedhermaphroditewithwings.Itisthebelief,however,that thegestatingmothercouldproduceamonsterbytheforceofherimagi- nationwhichinformsthenarrativesthataccompanyParé'spicture,evi- dentlyderivedfromBoiastuau,ofahairywomanandblackchild(Figure 5).AlthoughParé'sverbalcommentaryexplainshowtheseconditions resultedfromanerrantmaternalimagination,theirmonstrousnessis indicatedpictoriallyonlybythesuperficialcharacteristicofeitherexces- sivehairinessorblackskin.Inthetwentiethcentury,neithercharacteris- ticwouldbeconsideredabirthdefect.Paré'snarrativemakesclearthat inthesixteenthcenturyhairinessorblackskinalonedidnotconstitute monstrousness.Ablackchildborntoblackparentswouldnothavebeen consideredamonster,norwouldahairychildborntohirsuteparents. Indeed,Parécharacterizesasmonstrousthebirthofawhitechildto blackparents:"WehavereadinHeliodorusthatPersiana,Queenof DuPlessis'ShortHistoryofProdigies/85 Figure5."Theeffigyofamaidallhairyandaninfantthatwasblack,bythe imaginationoftheirparents."FromAmbroiseParé'sOfMonstersandProdigies (London,1634),978. Ethiopia,byherhusbandHidustes,beingalsoanEthiope,hadadaugh- terofawhitecomplexion,becauseintheembracesofherhusband,by whichsheprovedwithchild,sheearnestlyfixedhereyeandmindupon thepictureofthefairAndromedastandingoppositetoher."16 Itistheunexpectednessofthechild'sskincolorwhichgivesitthe statusofmonster;thefactthatitsformationwas,asAristotledefines 86 / AUBREY monstrosities,"contrarytothegeneralruleandtowhatisusual...