Such miserable junctions naturally suggested the idea of effecting a separation by surgical means; but I believe this operation was only once performed with a successful result. Two little girls were united from the xiphoid cartilage to the umbilicus. The uniting substance was an inch in thickness, six lines in breadth, and five inches in circumference. In the centre of the junction was the umbilical ring common to both. The umbilical vessels were separated and tied; the ligature fell at the expiration of nine days; and then Zwingler, the operator, proceeded to divide the remaining bonds.
Various monsters have been seen with four arms and three legs, or four legs and two or three arms. The history of the double-headed infant of Oxford is curious. This creature had two heads diametrically opposite, four arms, one body and two lower extremities. These heads were doubly baptized; one by the name of Martha, and the other Mary. The features were different; Mary’s was smiling, Martha’s dejected. The latter died two days after her birth, and Mary expired a quarter of an hour after.
A curious monster of a similar description is recorded to have lived at the court of James IV. of Scotland. It had been taught several languages, and music. One head was intelligent, the other remarkably stupid. This creature lived twenty-eight years, when one of the individuals died. The other survived several days, but gradually drooped as the body of his late companion was decomposing. In olden writers we have many curious cases. How far they may be entitled to credit I cannot say; although we have no reason to deny the fact, when we daily witness the most singular malconformations. Liceti relates the case of a child with two legs, but seven heads and seven arms. Bartholinus mentions one with three heads, each of which uttered the most horrible cries, and then expired.
While these unfortunates were visited with several heads, instances have been known of heads that had attained a most enormous volume. In Tunis, there was a Moor of thirty years of age, whose head was so large, that crowds followed him in the streets; and his mouth was of such a capacity, that he could devour a large melon as easily as an apple. This man was an idiot. At Lucca, Benvenuti saw a lad, otherwise well-proportioned, whose head at the age of seven began to increase so rapidly, that when he was twenty-seven it measured thirty-seven inches eight lines in circumference, and his face was fifteen inches long.
Singular monstruosities have been seen, where heads and bodies seemed actually to be growing from or hanging to individuals. Winslow knew an Italian child, of eight years of age, who carried a little head under the third left rib, and peeping out as if the body of the one had been concealed in that of the other. Both heads had been christened; the one James, the other Matthew. When the ear of little Matthew was pinched, his host James forthwith began to roar. The Bengal child, whose case is related by Valentin and Horne, is equally singular. Here one head was placed above the other, the superior one nearly as well conformed as the lower; both adhered intimately. The upper face assumed somewhat of an oblique direction. Each head had its distinct brain: sometimes one head was fast asleep while his neighbour was wide awake, and one head would cry most piteously if you pulled the hair of the other; but, what was still more singular, when the one was fed, its companion expressed its gratification, and water flowed from its mouth. This monster lived four years, and probably would have lived much longer, but for the bite of a venomous reptile.
In a former article I alluded to encephalous and anencephalous cases, where there were either no heads or heads without brains. Of the first variety Béclard relates the following: A woman at Angers was delivered of twins, one of which not only was without a head, but only showed the inferior part of the body; without arms, a small stump-like excrescence growing from the upper part of the chest; the feet were turned inwards, and without toes. The creature was of the male sex. The body presented one cavity without any diaphragm; nor could any trace of liver, spleen, œsophagus, or stomach be detected: the intestinal tube commenced at the upper part of the body, but was impervious; the pancreas and kidneys were as usual; the umbilical vein arose from the cava, and the umbilical arteries from the hypogastric. There were ten ribs on each side, and the spinal marrow threw out its regular nerves.
Brunel has recorded the case of a male infant born without brains. The frontal bone was thrown back, and flattened on the sphenoid in such a manner that the eyes appeared above his head. The parietal and the squamous portion of the temporal were wanting, although the organ of hearing was well conformed. Not a vestige of brain could be discovered; yet the carotid and vertebral arteries crossed the basis of the cranium. The spinal marrow arose from the fourth cervical vertebra. The organs of sight were perfect. Saviard describes an infant in which all the bones of the cranium were wanting, and, instead of a brain, the skin merely covered a cyst, containing a red pulpy substance resembling brain, whence arose several nerves.
It is, no doubt, to these malconformations that we are to attribute the various stories of children with heads of monkeys, goats, pigs, &c., or of that child whose face represented the devil, and who was described as “Cacodæmonis picturæ quàm humanæ figuræ similius,” &c. The idle tales of Cyclopes are also to be sought in such accidental preternatural appearances, and several instances are recorded of children born with a single eye in the forehead. It would be useless to dwell longer on this painful subject. Those who wish for more information may gratify their curiosity by consulting the works of Haller, Sœmmering, and other writers, who have treated this matter ex professo.
In conclusion, it appears to me that monstruosities are purely accidental, subject to no laws of nature, but deviations from them. We leave to theologasters the question of their being visitations of divine wrath. The only theories that can admit of discussion are the following: 1st, The imagination of the mother; 2nd, Accidental causes; and 3rd, An original monstrous germ. Maternal marks arising from longings and terror, as I have already observed, seemed to warrant the first conclusion; yet it is not tenable. What has imagination to do with the vegetable kingdom, which also presents monstrous conformations? Are we to attribute the same power of imagination to the brute creation? and, although we may fully admit the sympathy that exists between the uterine system and external objects, yet we cannot refer headless and double and triple embryos to this influence. The last hypothesis is also fraught with objections. We have every reason to believe that all germs or seed are perfect in themselves. Were there monstrous germs, there would ensue monstrous races. That germs may be accidentally vitiated and impaired there can be no doubt; but such an adventitious occurrence does not constitute an original monstruosity. Duverney and Winslow maintained that, in the case of a double monster, the monstruosity arose in the primitive germ. Lemery and other physiologists, on the contrary, insisted that double fœtuses arise, as I have already stated, from a junction or fusion between two separate bodies, or, in short, the union of twins or triple conceptions, &c. Anatomical investigations confirmed this opinion, since in double-headed fœtuses two distinct sets of organs are generally found.
This subject has occupied the most ingenious philosophers for centuries; and the result of their experiments and debates seems to warrant the probability of these melancholy deviations from nature, foolishly denominated lusi naturæ, being purely accidental. The experiments of Jacobi seem to confirm this opinion, since he was able to produce preternatural fecundation in the eggs of fishes.