A Dwarf Man Can Be Grown Inside a Pumpkin
In ancient times, well-known figures such as Pythagoras and Aristotle formulated a doctrine called “spermatism” or “preformationism.” According to this doctrine, new living beings are formed from their tiny copies, which are found in the bodies of fathers.
During sexual intercourse, a man places such a copy inside a woman, where it develops. The woman herself is not particularly necessary—she serves only as an incubator.
Since microscopes were only invented in the late 16th century and scientists started examining sperm even later, this theory prevailed for centuries. During the Middle Ages, it was considered indisputable.
Since everything necessary for creating a miniature human was already in sperm, the scholars of that time concluded that a child could be produced without a mother’s involvement. This theory appeared in the works of the alchemist Paracelsus.
The idea was to create a being resembling a human but smaller in size—no more than 12 inches (30 centimeters). This creature was called a “homunculus,” and it was supposed to be fed human blood.
Here is the detailed recipe:
Take male sperm and leave it to rot, first in a sealed pumpkin, then in a horse’s stomach for 40 days until something starts to live, move, and stir inside it.
Paracelsus, “De natura rerum,” 1537
The pumpkin could be placed in horse manure for insulation. Why? The alchemist reasoned roughly like this: children come from women; women are warm; horses are also warm, and thus capable of carrying foals. Horse manure has the temperature of a horse—Paracelsus somehow did not think that in 40 days, it might cool down. Therefore, manure could replace a woman’s womb. Logical? Logical.
Naturally, no one managed to grow a homunculus. But the alchemists truly tried.
There Exists a Bull That Emits Fiery Intestinal Gases
A creature called “bonacon” is first mentioned in the ancient book “Natural History” by Pliny the Elder. In the Middle Ages, Greek and Roman scientific works were highly valued, as trusting the wisdom of the ancestors was considered more reliable than figuring things out oneself.
Thus, scholars of that time did not doubt for a second that there was a bull whose rear end emitted napalm.
In medieval bestiaries, the bonacon is a creature living in Asia, looking exactly like a bull. This even-toed ungulate has a problem: its horns are bent backward, so the beast, even if it wanted to, could not injure anyone. The fact that rams have the same structure and it does not hinder their effectiveness in battle somehow did not occur to anyone.
But the strength of the bonacon lies not in its horns. It can “discharge excrement from its belly over a distance of three acres, the heat of which ignites everything it touches. Thus, it destroys its pursuers with its fiery fumes.”
It was believed that the bonacon lived in Galatia (modern-day Turkey). So, if you happen to be there and see a cow, do not approach it from behind. Just in case.
Witches Steal Male Genitals to Tame Them
In the 15th century, a German monk and inquisitor of the Dominican Order, Heinrich Kramer, who also used the pen name Henricus Institoris (Latin for “retail merchant”), wrote a guide on identifying and destroying witches and warlocks. He called it “Malleus Maleficarum” (“The Hammer of Witches”).
This gripping treatise describes all the terrible and cunning tricks performed by damned witches. Kramer also mentioned warlocks but only in passing, as female witches were considered more dangerous. The reason is…
As described in “Malleus Maleficarum,” witches, among other things, steal men’s penises at night.
They do not just curse or render them impotent—they literally take them away, leaving an empty space. One moment it’s there, the next it’s gone. Kramer also allowed for the possibility that witches simply made the organ invisible, but the hypothesis of complete theft seemed more likely.
Why would witches need male genitals? They kept them as pets, in specially arranged nests, fed them oats, and rode them like horses. Kramer claims that “reliable witnesses” told him that one witch had 20 or 30 such pets in a box.
However, Inquisitor Heinrich adds, a witch could, in principle, take pity and return what was stolen. Once, a man approached a witch and asked for his organ back. She replied, “You’ve convinced me. Climb that tree and pick the one you like best from the nest.” When the happy peasant came down with his prize, the sorceress stopped him: “Don’t touch that one. It belongs to the parish priest, and I need it. Put it back.”
Fortunately, today, to have such a pet, there is no need to resort to witchcraft. Just visit a specialized store.
Perhaps the myth arose due to a mental disorder called “cultural syndrome.” With this condition, men feel their penis has disappeared, while women “lose” not only their genitals but also their breasts. What can one say? Witches stole them. Obviously.
Menstruation Gives Women Superpowers
Another misconception initially appeared in Pliny’s notes (this scholar clearly did not bother verifying his theories) and later was reproduced in medieval treatises as an unquestionable truth. It claims that menstruation is a very dangerous phenomenon, not for the woman herself—who is known as a “vessel of sin”—but for the virtuous citizens around her and their property.
For example, it was believed that menstruating women could kill bees with their gaze, and in their presence, wine would sour. Crops would wither, fruit would fall from trees and rot, knives would dull, mirrors would fade, ivory would yellow, and dogs would go mad, making their bites poisonous.
Iron and bronze (yes, bronze too) would rust, and the air would fill with terrible miasmas. Moreover, ants, upon seeing a girl “in these days,” would flee from her, trembling in fear.
And such women were not to be allowed into churches at all, or else disaster would strike.
But menstruation had its advantages. For instance, it was believed that during this time, women could ward off storm clouds. And part of the blood that did not leave the body would heat up, coagulate, and whiten under the influence of hot air, turning into breast milk. There you go.
Mice, Insects, and Worms are Born from Dirt
In the Middle Ages, the “theory of spontaneous generation” was extremely popular. According to it, mice, rats, frogs, snakes, worms, insects, and other unpleasant creatures did not reproduce sexually like all decent beings but appeared spontaneously from filth.
The doctrine of the birth of new living beings from decaying matter, which was promoted by Aristotle and Pliny, was called “vitalism.” According to Bishop Isidore of Seville, who lived in the 7th century, the Latin word mus (“mouse”) shares a root with the word humus (“compost”).
Naturally, Latin was considered a strong argument in biochemistry.
Theologians Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas expanded this theory by asserting that pests and parasites appeared from dirt by the devil’s will. Moreover, in hell, due to the rotting of sins, worms spontaneously arise and gnaw at the sinners.
However, in the 12th century, Gerald of Wales doubted that only impure creatures formed from the earth. After all, don’t birds like barnacle geese originate from sea mud and silt on driftwood washed ashore by the tide? This was direct evidence of immaculate conception! The idea appealed to the clergy.
But a little later, the theory received a continuation: if barnacle geese come from mud, then their relatives, geese, do as well. Thus, geese, like barnacle geese, are akin to fish and can be eaten during Lent.
Pope Innocent III did not like this state of affairs at all, and in 1215 he issued a decree stating that geese are birds and cannot be eaten during Lent. Only bad creatures arise in mud and silt, while respectable ones do not. Immaculate conception needs no proof, and anyone who doubts any of the above points will be judged as a heretic.
The doctrine of vitalism was only disproved by Francesco Redi in 1668. He guessed to put a piece of rotten meat in a jar and cover it with a cloth. No flies appeared in the jar (the cloth prevented them), which meant that spontaneous generation did not work. No one had thought of conducting such an experiment before.
Fairies Regularly Kidnap Children and Replace Them with Changelings
In the Middle Ages, raising a child was quite a challenge. Even loving parents could pose a certain danger to the baby by applying the strangest care methods—naturally, with the best of intentions. But there were even worse things—like fairies. This is a collective term for all sorts of supernatural beings: fairies, elves, pixies, trolls, and others.
Yes, in modern fairy tales, these creatures are quite friendly. They turn ragged girls into princesses, give them cool pumpkin carriages and glass slippers—in general, they engage in all kinds of charity.
But medieval fairies were truly wild and fierce. They were always waiting for the right moment to secretly snatch a child whom the kind parents left alone for just a second.
Witches or even the devil himself, who, as we know, was on friendly terms with fairies, could also be involved in the kidnapping.
Why did evil forces engage in the kidnapping of minors? The benefits of such actions are obvious.
The stolen child could be eaten, turned into a servant or toy, or raised and used for breeding. Fairies love crossbreeding with humans to diversify their gene pool.
Naturally, upon seeing the child’s absence, the parents would immediately start searching for the missing one, which was not needed by the evil creatures. Therefore, the prudent trolls would leave a changeling instead of the real child. This was either some elf carefully disguised as an infant or just an enchanted log that looked exactly like a baby.
The changeling usually died soon after. And the inconsolable parents thought that their child had died of natural causes rather than being kidnapped. However, this monster could also grow up, turning into someone very cunning and malevolent. This could not be allowed. To quickly identify a troll disguised as a child, a whole set of methods was applied.
For example, the changeling could be thrown into the fire—then it would fly up the chimney, returning the real child to its place. Or simply beaten—the vile spawn wouldn’t stand such treatment and would reveal where the baby was. Finally, one could just examine it closely. If the scoundrel’s teeth cut through too early, or the head was unusually large, or hair appeared sooner than expected, or even a beard started to show—it’s definitely a troll.
But there is a more humane way to find out if you have a changeling. Do something incredibly stupid in front of it, so even a hundred-year-old goblin’s jaw would drop. For example, start eating porridge with a shoe.
A troll stunned by such a spectacle won’t be able to hold back and might say something like, “What’s wrong with you, mother? Is there a draft in the attic?”
Could a child say something like that? No. Get rid of it! However, it’s not necessary for the infant to speak—it’s enough if it laughs. After all, children don’t laugh spontaneously—only if they are goblins in disguise.
Belief in changelings was widespread throughout Europe for centuries. Historians believe it helped parents cope with the death of a child. They were convinced that their real baby lived in the land of the fairies, and only the substituted doll had died.
One-Legged and Dog-Headed People Exist
Most likely, when you hear the word “monopod,” you think of a camera stand. But in the Middle Ages, this term meant something entirely different.
At that time, it was believed that somewhere in India or Ethiopia lived people who had only one, but very large, leg. They were described quite seriously by Archbishop Isidore of Seville in his treatise Etymologiae.
He mentioned that these beings were incredibly fast—apparently, jumping on one leg was easier than running on two. In addition, Isidore provides their Greek name: σκιαπόδες, “shadow-footed.” When a monopod, or sciopod, as they were also called, gets tired, they lie on their back and cover themselves from the sun with their foot.
How they got up after resting with only one leg, the archbishop forgot to describe.
Missionary Giovanni de Marignolli, who visited India in the 14th century, claimed that travelers from afar mistook Indians with traditional sun umbrellas for one-legged people, but this convinced few.
Another mythical people who supposedly inhabited all of Asia were the cynocephali, or dog-headed people. The 13th-century encyclopedist Vincent of Beauvais, who served at the court of King Louis IX, swore that dog-headed tribes existed—this was known from reliable sources. Later, Marco Polo mentioned them, calling the cynocephali “as fierce as large mastiffs.”
There is a possibility that the myth of the cynocephali arose when Europeans first saw images and statues of the Egyptian god Anubis. Another version is that some merchants or travelers encountered eastern tribes wearing headgear resembling a dog’s head or made from dog fur. Then some monk wrote something down incorrectly, and the myth spread.
