Mutants (5 page)

Beyond the walls of the museum, Paris was enthralled. The
Courier Français
intimated that the medical men had connived at the death of the sisters; they replied that the magistrates who had let the family sink to such miserable depths were to blame. The journalist and critic Jules Janin published a three-thousand-word
j’accuse
in which he excoriated the anatomists for taking the scalpel to the poetic mystery that was Ritta and Christina: ‘You despoil this beautiful corpse, you bring this monster to the level of ordinary men, and when all is done, you have only the shade of a corpse.’ And then he suggested that the girls would be a fine subject for a novel.

The first cut exposed the ribcage. United by a single sternum, the ribs embraced both sisters, yet were attached to two quite
distinct vertebral columns that curved gracefully down to the common pelvis. There were two hearts, but they were contained within a single pericardium, and Ritta’s was profoundly deformed: the intra-auricular valves were perforated and she had two superior vena cavas, one of which opened into the left ventricle, the other into the right – the likely cause of her cyanosis. Had it not been for this imperfection, lamented Serres, and had the children lived under more favourable circumstances, they would surely have survived to adulthood. Two oesophagi led to two stomachs, and two colons, which then joined to a common rectum. Each child had a uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes, but only one set of reproductive organs was connected to the vagina, the other being small and underdeveloped. Most remarkably of all, where Christina’s heart, stomach and liver were quite normally oriented, Ritta’s were transposed relative to her sister’s, so that the viscera of the two girls formed mirror-images of each other. The anatomists finished their work, and then boiled the skeleton for display.

A PAIR OF LONG-CASE CLOCKS

The oldest known depiction of a pair of conjoined twins is a statue excavated from a Neolithic shrine in Anatolia. Carved from white marble, it depicts a pair of dumpy middle-aged women joined at the hip. Three thousand years after this statue was carved, Australian Aborigines inscribed a memorial to a dicephalus (two heads, one body) conjoined twin on a rock that lies near what are now the outskirts of Sydney. Another two
thousand years (we are now at 700 bc), and the conjoined Molionides brothers appear in Greek geometric art. Eurytos and Cteatos by name, one is said to be the son of a god, Poseidon, the other of a mortal, King Actor. Discordant paternity notwithstanding, they have a common trunk and four arms, each of which brandishes a spear. In a Kentish parish, loaves of bread in the shape of two women locked together side by side are distributed to the poor every Easter Monday, a tradition, it is said, that dates from around the time of the Norman conquest and that commemorates a bequest made by a pair of conjoined twins who once lived there.

By the sixteenth century, conjoined twins crop up in the monster-and-marvel anthologies with the monotonous regularity with which they now appear in British tabloids or the
New York Post
. Ambroise Paré described no fewer than thirteen, among them two girls joined back to back, two sisters joined at the forehead, two boys who shared a head and two infants who shared a heart. In 1560 Pierre Boaistuau gave an illuminated manuscript of his
Histoires prodigieuses
to Elizabeth I of England. Amid the plates of demonic creatures, wild men and fallen monarchs, is one devoted to two young women standing in a field on a single pair of legs, flaming red hair falling over their shoulders, looking very much like a pair of Botticelli Venuses who have somehow become entangled in each other.

For the allegory-mongers, conjoined twins signified political union. Boaistuau notes that another pair of Italian conjoined twins were born on the very day that the warring city-states of Genoa and Venice had finally declared a truce – no coincidence
there. Montaigne, however, will have none of it. In his
Essays
(c.1580) he describes a pair of conjoined twins that he encountered as they were being carted about the French countryside by their parents. He considers the idea that the children’s joined torsos and multiple limbs might be a comment on the ability of the King to unify the various factions of his realm under the rule of law, but then rejects it. He continues,
‘Those whom we call monsters are not so with God, who in the immensity of his work seeth the infinite forms therein contained.’
Conjoined twins did not reflect God’s opinion about the course of earthly affairs. They were signs of His omnipotence.

C
ONJOINED TWINS: PARAPAGUS DICEPHALUS DIBRACHIUS
. N
ORMANDY
. F
ROM
P
IERRE
B
OAISTUAU
1560
Histoires prodigieuses.

By the early eighteenth century, this humanist impulse – the same impulse that caused Sir Thomas Browne to write so tenderly about deformity – had arrived at its logical conclusion. In 1706 Joseph-Guichard Duverney, surgeon and anatomist at the Jardin du Roi in Paris, the very place where Ritta and Christina had been laid open, dissected another pair of twins who were joined at the hips. Impressed by the perfection of the join, Duverney concluded that they were without doubt a testament to the ‘the richness of the Mechanics of the Creator’, who had clearly designed them so. After all, since God was responsible for the form of the embryo, He must also be responsible if it all went wrong. Indeed, deformed infants were not really the result of embryos gone
wrong
– they were part of His plan. Bodies, said Duverney, were like clocks. To suppose that conjoined twins could fit together so nicely without God’s intervention was as absurd as supposing that you could take two long-case clocks, crash them into each other, and expect their parts to fuse into one harmonious and working whole.

Others thought this was ridiculous. To be sure, they argued, God was ultimately responsible for the order of nature, but the notion that He had deliberately engineered defective eggs or sperm as a sort of creative flourish was absurd. If bodies were clocks, then there seemed to be a lot of clocks around that were hardly to the Clockmaker’s credit. Monsters were not evidence of divine design: they were just accidents.

The conflict between these two radically different postitions, between deformity as divine design and deformity as accident, came to be known as
la querelle des monstres
– the quarrel of the
monsters. It pitted French anatomists against one another for decades, the contenders trading blows in the
Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences
. More than theology was at stake. The quarrel was also a contest over two different views of how embryos are formed. Duverney and his followers were preformationists. They held that each
egg
(or, in some version of the theory, each sperm) contained the entire embryo writ small, complete with limbs, liver and lungs. Stranger yet, this tiny embryo (which some microscopists claimed they could see) also contained eggs or sperm, each of which, in turn contained an embryo…and so on,
ad infinitum
. Each of Eve’s ovaries, by this reasoning, contained all future humanity.

Preformationism was an ingenious theory and won prominent adherents. Yet many seventeenth- and eighteenth-century philosophers, among them freethinkers such as Buffon and Maupertuis, preferred some version of the older theory of ‘epigenesis’, the notion that embryonic order does not exist in the egg or the sperm
per se
, but rather emerges spontaneously after fertilisation. At the time of the
querelle
, many thought that the preformationists had the better side of the argument. Today, however, it is more difficult to judge a victor. Neither the preformationists nor the epigeneticists had a coherent theory of inheritance, so the terms of the debate between them do not correspond in any simple way to a modern understanding of the causes of deformity or development. Preformationism, with its infinite regress of embryos, seems the more outlandish of the two theories, though it captures nicely the notion that development errors are often (though not invariably) due to some
mistake intrinsic to the germ cells – the cells that become eggs and sperm – or at least their DNA. But the epigeneticists speak more powerfully to the idea that embryos are engaged in an act of self-creation which can be derailed by external influences, chemicals and the like, or even chance events within their dividing cells.

HOW TO MAKE A CONJOINED TWIN

What makes twins conjoin? Aristotle, characteristically, covered the basic options. In one passage of
The generation of animals
he argues that conjoined twins come from two embryos that have fused. That, at least, is where he thought conjoined chickens (which have four wings and four legs) come from. But elsewhere he suggests that they come from one embryo that has split into two.

To modern ears his notion of how an embryo might split sounds odd, but it is a sophisticated account, all of a piece with his theory of how embryos develop. Having no microscope, Aristotle knows nothing of the existence of sperm and eggs. Instead he supposes that embryos coagulate out of a mixture of menstrual fluid and semen, the semen causing the menstrual fluid to thicken rather as – to use his homely metaphor – fig juice causes milk to curdle when one makes cheese. This is epigenesis
avant la lettre
. Indeed, preformationism was very much an attack on the Aristotelian theory of embryogenesis and, by extension, its account of the origins of deformity. Sometimes, says Aristotle, there is simply too much of the pre-embryonic mix. If there is only a little too much, you get infants with extra
or unusually large parts, such as six fingers or an overdeveloped leg; more again, and you get conjoined twins; even more mix, separate twins. He uses a beautiful image to describe how the mix separates to make two individuals. They are, he says, the result of a force in the womb like falling water: ‘…as the water in rivers is carried along with a certain motion, if it dash against anything two systems come into being out of one, each retaining the same motion; the same thing happens with the embryo’.

For Aristotle, the two ways of making conjoined twins bear on their individuality. He rules that if conjoined twins have separate hearts, then they are the products of two embryos and are two individuals; if there is only one heart, then they are one. The question of conjoined twin individuality haunts their history. Thomas Aquinas thought that it depended on the number of hearts
and
heads (thereby ensuring perpetual confusion for priests who wanted to know how many baptisms conjoined infants required). When twins are united by only by a slender cartilaginous band – the case with the original Siamese twins, Eng and Chang (1811–74) – it is easy to grant each his own identity. More intimately joined twins have, however, always caused confusion. In accounts of Ritta and Christina Parodi, the girls often appear as the singular ‘Ritta-Christina’, or even ‘the girl with two heads’, rather than two girls with one body – which is what they were.

Until recently, the origin of conjoined twins has been debated in much the terms that Aristotle used: they are the result either of fusion or fission. Most medical textbooks plump for the latter. Monozygotic (identical) twins, the argument goes, are
manifestly the products of one embryo that has accidentally split into two; and if an embryo can split completely, surely it can split partially as well. This argument has the attraction of simplicity. It is also true that conjoined twins are nearly always monozygotic – they originate from a single egg fertilised by a single sperm. Yet there are several hints that monozygotic twins who are born conjoined are the result of quite different events in the first few weeks after conception than are those who are born separate.

One difference between conjoined and separate twins is that conjoined twins share a single placenta and (as they must) a single amniotic sac. Separate twins also share a single placenta, but each usually has an amniotic sac of its own as well. Since the amniotic sac forms after the placenta, this suggests that the split – if split it is – happens later in conjoined twins than in separate twins.

Another suggestive difference comes from the strange statistics of twin gender. Fifty per cent of separate monozygotic twins born are female. This is a little higher than one would expect, since, in most populations at most times, slightly fewer girls than boys are born. But in conjoined twins the skew towards femininity is overwhelming: about 77 per cent are girls. No one knows why this is so, but it neatly explains why depictions of conjoined twins – from Neolithic shrines to the
New York Post
– are so often female.

Perhaps the best reason for thinking that conjoined twins are not the result of a partially split embryo is the geometry of the twins themselves. Conjoined twins may be joined at their heads,
thoraxes, abdomens or hips; they may be oriented belly to belly, side to side, or back to back; and each of these connections may be so weak that they share hardly any organs or so intimate that they share them all. It is hard to see how all this astonishing array of bodily configurations could arise by simply splitting an embryo in two.