History of Monsters. 359

Furthermore, the question is raised whether a monstrous human, such as one with two bodies, is possessed of a single soul or a double one. Aristotle responds that this must be determined from the heart: since a single heart in such a monster represents only one animal, two hearts represent two. The difficulty now lies in how to determine, while such a monster is still living, whether it contains only one heart or two. In his commentaries on Aristotle, Nifo recorded that there was once a long debate among theologians in France regarding a monster of this kind—specifically, whether it should be baptized with the water of the sacred font as one person or several. They eventually decreed that the distinction should be made based on the difference of the senses. Indeed, Albertus Magnus mentions a certain monster resembling a twin human, whom they determined to be two distinct people because when one was provoked to anger, the other laughed; and while one wept, the other displayed joy. This monster lived to the age of twenty; in fact, when one died, the other survived until he also passed away, overcome by the stench of the deceased. Physicians, however, strongly disagree with Aristotle’s opinion in deciding this question. For they do not look to the heart, as Aristotle did, but only to the brain, wherein reside the seat of reason and the dignity of the human form. Although the fount of vital heat flows from the heart, reasoning and discourse take place only in the head. Moreover, to further stabilize the physicians' opinion, the formative faculty that outlines everything is primarily concerned with the brain during conception. Anatomists have observed through dissection that the head in an embryo is larger than the other parts; indeed, they find each limb to be consistently smaller the further it is removed from the region of the head, until the fetus has attained the form of perfect formation.

Likewise, it is asked why monsters of diminutive size, such as dwarfs, are produced within the human race. They answer that this arises from two causes: namely, from the space and from the nourishment. The narrowness of the place, or the womb, ensures that the fetus cannot expand, and a scarcity of nourishment prevents the fetus from being able to reach a perfect stature. They also investigate why, in the order of things, a woman is called a monster. Aristotle addresses this in his *Physics* when he asserts that everything produced "by accident" is called a monster. Since a woman seems to be produced, in a sense, by accident, she is therefore rightly placed among the monsters. The minor premise of this reasoning is known to all: since Nature always intends to procreate the most perfect thing, she is undoubtedly always directed toward generating a male; therefore, she occasionally produces a female only because of the disposition of the matter.

Finally, many inquire whether monsters coming into the light always portend or foreshadow something, as the etymology of their name suggests. Many authors have held the opinion that something is always to be predicted from the birth of a monster. Melanchthon, for instance, seems to confirm this view by the birth of a monster before the war that Caesar undertook against the Romans. Indeed, Sorbinus agrees with the aforementioned author, confirming this throughout his *Teratologia* with examples of various monsters.

Yet men ought not to be so easy and prone to believing in the portents of monsters, for Saint Augustine condemns this in a marvelous way. He says: "Let the interpreters of monsters and omens see how often they are deceived by them, entangling the minds of men in matters of harmful vanity—though by saying many things, they may occasionally hit upon some truth." Thus, Cardano did not speak erroneously when he asserted that monstrous births denote evils, just as crude urine in sickness demonstrates that nature is occupied elsewhere and has wandered from the right path. Indeed, weighing this, Paré eventually wrote that because parents join together without moderation or law—whether through straying or unspeakable intercourse, or at a time when they ought to abstain by the mandate of God and the Church—they often give birth to shameful and horrendous things that deviate from the common rule of nature; therefore, one should not take refuge in prophecy. Yet, how is it that some extraordinary monsters can indeed foreshadow something? For Martin Weinrich left a written record that in a certain village in France, a child was once born with the point of a sword visibly protruding from its belly. After suppuration gradually occurred, the point was extracted, and it portended a civil war. Since no physical cause could be given for this, the reader will find the image of this monster in its proper place, surely