JAMA 100 YEARS AGO
JANUARY 26, 1907
SUPERSTITION IN TERATOLOGY.
EDWIN TAYLOR SHELLY, M.D.
Man has always and everywhere been the plaything of the
supernatural,ahelplessrodentunderthecruelclawsoftheblack
catofsuperstition.Nowandthenanindividualhasescapedfrom
his tormentor, but for the vast hordes of humanity this has been
impossible and continues so in varying degree in every inhab-
ited portion of the globe to this day. To the whims and caprices
of gods of its own making has mankind too easily been lead in
the past to attribute every misfortune and every unusual natu-
ral phenomenon. No wonder, therefore, that the ancients of-
ten accounted in this way for the startling and sometimes hid-
eous defects and deformities known to teratology.
ANCIENT TERATOGENIC THEORIES.
In the very earliest ages of the world it is probable that some
of the terata were themselves deified, or were considered the
progeny or at least the simulacra of the gods. Euhemerus was
an ancient historian who accounted for the deities of Hellenic
mythology by regarding myths as traditional accounts of real
incidents of human history. In this way euhemerism ac-
counts for the teratologic appearance of many of the heathen
gods and demi-gods, and we may, therefore, euhemerize Poly-
phemus into a cyclops fetus; the Centaur into a hydroce-
phalic calf; Atlas into a case of occipital encephalocele; Pro-
metheus into a fetal exomphalos, etc.
Another theory held that monstrosities were created by
the gods purely for their own amusement. . . . But this theory
soon gave way to the monitory or minatory theory which
kept a very firm hold on the minds of men for many ages.
Monsters were a divine warning or threat and called for the
propitiation of the offended diety [sic], whether heathen or
Christian, and the deformed infant soon came to be re-
garded as the proper sacrificial or propitiatory offering to
the displeased celestial magnate. Even the mother at times
met the same fate as her defective child. . . .
Since the very earliest times the moon and the stars and
their changing positions in the sky have been looked on as
teratogenic causes. Those ancient experts in the divination,
the Chaldeans, felt so proficient in their art that they consid-
ered it an easy matter to tell not only what stellar combina-
tions caused certain monstrosities, but how the future in turn
might be read by the appearance of monstrosities; that is, they
lost the supposed cause of the phenomenon in the sup-
posed effect, and monsters became heralds or portends. This
art of prophesying future events by the appearance of mon-
strosities is known as teratoscopy and was practiced very ex-
tensively in Mesopotamia 2,000 B.C., as is shown by remark-
ably well-preserved and well-executed teratoscopic tablets
which have been unearthed by Assyriologists at Nineveh.
Belief in stellar influence on fetal development survived long
after the fall of Babylon, and the abandonment of the special
418 JAMA, January 24/31, 2007Vol 297, No. 4 (Reprinted)
Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ by a Georgetown University Medical Center User on 05/27/2015
Chaldean horoscopic tables. In Alexandria, astrologers of the
Second century made very specific claims in regard to the power
of the moon, stars and planets as teratogenic factors; and the
scholasticism of the middle ages was saturated with this belief.
In the Seventeenth century a Danish philosopher ascribed mon-
sters to comets which he regarded as celestial tumors that at
times fell to the earth and assumed the shapes and forms of fetal
monstrosities. The control which the moon was once supposed
to exercise at times over the product of conception is preserved
in the word moon-calf, an embryo or fetus made monstrous
through the influence of the moon. . . .
THE IMPRESSION THEORY IN MODERN TEXT-BOOKS.
All the foregoing theories of the past have practically been
abandoned, at least by modern physicians; but there still re-
mains to be noticed another ancient theory, that of impres-
sionism, which has been more fortunate in this regard, as
its popularity has been maintained throughout all the cen-
turies from the days of Jacob down to the present time. . . .
In view of the fact that the maternal impression theory
is only seldom called into question and seems to be con-
sidered by eminent obstetric authorities fully adequate to
account for any physical or psychic defects which may ap-
pear in the new-born child, or may even develop in later
years, is it any wonder that our popular magazines and jour-
nals contain at times serio-comic articles by lay writers, over-
flowing with advice and suggestion for the expectant mother?
So confident and so specific are their directions that too of-
ten the mother is led to believe that she has it easily within
her power during pregnancy to mold very accurately the
tastes, disposition, character, physical development, and in-
tellectual endowments of her unborn offspring. . . .
BALEFUL EFFECTS OF THE IMPRESSION THEORY.
Practically all modern obstetric text-books contain the lat-
est important findings in regard to the development of the em-
bryo and fetus; their authors seem to understand the subject
thoroughly. This same knowledge has long since led teratolo-
gists to lose all faith in impressionism, but, curiously enough,
no such effect has been noted in the case of certain obstetric
authors who seem unable to cast off this moldy old belief of
the fathers, the grandfathers, and the grandmothers. . . .
Grievously to deplore the fact that we ourselves are most
to blame for the tenacity with which this medievalism still
holds sway throughout our land, is well; but that is not
enough. Led by men like Piersol, Cooke and Bacon; like
Woodruff and DeLee, no earnest member in our ranks should
hesitate to help with righteous zeal to dissipate this gross
anachronism, this hideous specter of a cruel, barbarous,
superstitious past.
JAMA. 1907;48:308-311
JAMA 100 Years Ago Section Editor: Jennifer Reiling, Assistant Editor.
2007 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.