accedit to the nature of the sacred Hebrew language itself, which recognizes no neuter gender; all its nouns are either masculine or feminine, which is entirely consistent with the passage: "Male and female He created them." The fact that we commonly read *Seraphim* in the neuter gender is an error that has crept in through poor usage. Therefore, it must be noted that the "hermaphrodite Adam" of the Hebrews should not be accepted, despite the opinions of Scheucus and others. If Adam had been an androgyne, he would have been named with a neuter noun, which the Hebrew language lacks. Furthermore, Nicholas of Lyra and many other learned men reject this opinion with the most powerful arguments, to which I refer the reader.

Finally, some wonder whether it is possible for a non-human fetus to emerge from a woman's womb; if it is possible, they then ask for the primary cause from which this might arise. Regarding the first point, many histories testify that non-human monsters have been generated in the human womb, as I have recounted in the chapter on Omens. Furthermore, many learned men support this view, first among them the jurist Paulus, who distinguished monstrous births into three types: those that entirely depart from the human form, those that abound with superfluous parts, and those that lack certain parts. He maintained that the first group should not be considered part of the human race at all. Other legal experts have shared this opinion, holding that certain monstrous births that bear no resemblance to a human should not be purified by the waters of the sacred font. Indeed, the most excellent jurist Baldus decreed that these should be destroyed immediately. Therefore, we perceive from these assertions that the womb does not always produce something of the same species, but sometimes something quite different. Similarly, Hieronymus of Angleria reported that Emperors, looking into this matter, established that a birth showing no monstrous inclination must be considered human. But why do we wander, when Aristotle himself published accounts of such births in his *History of Animals*? His words are: "The causes are the same for some to be born like their parents and others unlike them; some like the father, some the mother, both in the whole body and in individual parts; and more like their parents than their ancestors, or more like them than anyone else. Males tend to favor the father and females the mother, while others resemble no relative but are merely human-like, and others are not even human-like, but are already monsters."

From this doctrine of the Philosopher, it is powerfully true and beyond doubt that a birth entirely unlike a human can sometimes emerge from a woman's womb. This can be confirmed by daily experience, as fetuses are sometimes born whose deformity makes them unworthy of the washing of the sacred font. The reader may find more examples in the chapter on Omens, where a series of similar monsters is cataloged. Thus, a non-human monster can indeed be born from the union of a man and a woman.

As for the second question—by what means such monsters can be procreated in the human womb—it should be known that the opinions of authors vary. Some attribute this generation to food, air, and other "non-natural things," as physicians call them. Among these is Weinrich, who wrote that the location, the nature of the air, and the water consumed contribute to the origin of monsters. He adds, following the opinion of Juan Luis Vives, that there are certain places in Naples, Italy, and in Flanders in the Low Countries, where monsters are very frequent, and multiform beasts emerge from the human womb, either alone or alongside infants. On this subject, the same author believes that the frequent consumption of certain animals as food can lead to similar animals being generated in a woman's womb. He bolsters his opinion with the example of the women of Salerno, who are said to give birth to frogs because they eat them so frequently. However, this reasoning is rejected; for if it depended on food, such novelties in birth would be far more common. Furthermore, food cannot cause this, as it undergoes various transformations according to the temperament of the person eating. Even in times of famine, when the poor eat anything, however foul, they still produce children like themselves. If it should happen that a woman gives birth to a frog or a toad, it should be noted that this arises from a corruption of the seed, not from nourishment, as I have explained in my history of oviparous four-footed animals with toes.

Other authors have assigned the generation of non-human offspring to celestial influences. They attribute such power to the heavens that they believe the heavens intend their effects to be produced even when the power of particular causes is destroyed. Seneca was moved by this sentiment in his *Hippolytus* when he proclaimed that mon-