Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mary Toft

Mary Toft (baptised 21 February 1703 – January 1763), née Denyer, was an illiterate English servant from , , who in 1726 perpetrated an elaborate hoax by claiming to give birth to rabbits, deceiving multiple medical practitioners and sparking a national sensation. The scheme, involving accomplices who inserted dissected rabbit parts into her vagina to simulate monstrous deliveries, initially convinced local surgeon and later Nathaniel St. André, anatomist to the royal household, who examined her and published a defense of the phenomenon's authenticity. Exposed in December 1726 when Toft failed to produce further births and examinations revealed the rabbits were domestic specimens obtainable locally, the affair highlighted vulnerabilities in empirical verification during the early , inspiring satires by and others that mocked scientific credulity and public gullibility. Charged with in early 1727, Toft confessed under interrogation but faced no formal conviction, receiving instead a brief sentence of several weeks in Bridewell Prison for her role in the deception.

Early Life and Context

Background and Family

Mary Toft, née Denyer, was baptised on 21 February 1703 in , , , to parents John and Jane Denyer, members of the local labouring class. Little is documented about her childhood, but as the daughter of modest means in a rural , she likely contributed to household labour from a young age, reflecting the economic realities of early 18th-century agrarian communities where families relied on subsistence work in or textiles. At age 17, in approximately 1720, Toft married Joshua Toft, an 18-year-old clothier specialising in wool , a common trade in Surrey's weaving districts. The couple resided in , where Joshua's occupation provided limited stability amid fluctuating textile markets, positioning the family among the ; Mary herself worked as an illiterate servant or agricultural day-labourer before and during her . The Tofts had at least three children: a daughter Mary (birth date uncertain), Ann (born 27 March 1723, died July 1723), and James (born 1724). These early births occurred prior to the 1726 events that brought notoriety to the family, underscoring the typical reproductive patterns of young working-class women in the period, often marked by high and economic pressures.

18th-Century Social and Medical Environment

In rural during the 1720s, such as in areas like , , the majority of the population lived in agrarian communities where subsistence farming and manual labor predominated, with approximately half the populace existing at or near bare survival levels amid high rates and rudimentary housing. Superstitions persisted widely, particularly regarding and birth, where phenomena like malformed offspring were often attributed to maternal impressions—the notion that a pregnant woman's vivid thoughts, sights, or emotions could imprint deformities on the , a theory rooted in ancient ideas but still influential across into the early . This belief framed "monstrous births" not as anatomical anomalies but as consequences of the mother's psychological state or external portents, reflecting a causal understanding prioritizing environmental influences over innate biology, with public and even some medical interpretations lingering under superstitious lenses despite emerging skepticism. Medically, remained largely the domain of unlicensed female midwives, who relied on empirical experience passed orally rather than formal training, handling routine deliveries in homes without standardized instruments or anatomical precision. Physicians, focused on humoral imbalances and , rarely intervened in births unless complications arose, while surgeons—often lower-status practitioners—began encroaching as "man-midwives" by the 1720s, using in difficult cases but lacking comprehensive fetal knowledge due to limited dissections and preformationist embryological theories that viewed as predetermined rather than malleable. This environment fostered credulity toward extraordinary claims, as diagnostic tools were absent and verification depended on , with doctrine providing a pseudoscientific rationale for anomalies that aligned with observed correlations between maternal experiences and infant traits, though untested empirically.

The Hoax's Inception

Initial Claims in Godalming

In late 1726, Mary Toft, a 25-year-old illiterate laborer's wife residing in , , claimed to enter labor pains after a earlier that month, reportedly triggered by her fascination with rabbits encountered in the fields. On 27 September, attended by her mother-in-law Ann Toft and neighbor Mary Gill, Toft produced what the women described as a deformed, liverless resembling a cat's body, accompanied by unusual tissue masses. The next day, Guildford-based surgeon and man-midwife was summoned to examine Toft, where he witnessed further expulsions of dismembered animal parts, including three legs, one leg, cat-like guts, and fragments resembling an backbone. , initially skeptical, noted the phenomena's apparent genuineness and continued , recording additional outputs over the following weeks such as a rabbit's head, cat limbs, and, in one instance, nine dead newborn . These events, interpreted locally as monstrous births possibly linked to Toft's prior rabbit obsession or maternal impressions theory, gained traction through word-of-mouth in and Howard's private letters to fellow practitioners, establishing early belief among some medical observers before broader scrutiny.

Local Physicians' Involvement and Early "Births"

In late September 1726, Mary Toft of , , reported severe abdominal pains suggestive of labor, following an earlier in August that left her appearing pregnant. On 27 September, attended by neighbor Mary Gill and her mother-in-law Ann Toft, she delivered a malformed mass described as resembling a liverless , marking the first of her claimed abnormal births. The next day, 28 September, local surgeon and man-midwife from —approximately five miles from —was called to examine Toft after reports of further expulsions overnight. inspected the specimens, which included animal-like tissues, and professed initial belief in their uterine origin, attributing them to a prodigious influenced by Toft's reported fixation on rabbits during an earlier . Returning on 29 , directly assisted in additional "deliveries," extracting parts such as a 's head and cat's legs. Over the following weeks into early November, under his supervision, Toft produced nine dead newborn s in one session and subsequently one daily, totaling several such specimens. Deeming the events medically inexplicable yet genuine, kept detailed records, dissected some s to confirm their maturity and lack of surgical intervention, and circulated accounts to fellow practitioners, thereby amplifying local interest without immediate widespread skepticism. Howard's conviction stemmed from repeated observations of Toft's apparent labor convulsions and the anatomical consistency of the "offspring," which he argued could not have been manually inserted due to their size and the patient's condition. To facilitate monitoring, he arranged for Toft's transfer to his premises, where the daily rabbit "births" continued under his care, solidifying the phenomenon's credibility among regional medical figures before broader scrutiny.

Escalation to National Attention

Examinations by Leading Medical Figures

Nathaniel St. André, surgeon-anatomist to I, examined Toft on November 15, 1726, in , where he witnessed the "delivery" of rabbits 15 through 17, including a , skin, and head; he initially concluded the phenomenon was genuine, attributing it to fetal development within her, and published A Short of an Extraordinary of Rabbits on December 3, 1726, to defend his position. St. André's involved inspecting the rabbit parts for anatomical features consistent with natural , but his support waned after subsequent evidence emerged, leading him to acknowledge the by December 9, 1726. Sir Richard Manningham, a prominent London physician and man-midwife, conducted examinations in late November 1726 after Toft's transfer to London; he observed what appeared to be a hog's bladder during one session but grew skeptical, withholding public doubt until further proof, and on December 7, 1726, threatened surgical dissection of her reproductive organs, prompting Toft's confession of fraud. Manningham's methodical approach included vaginal and abdominal inspections, revealing no evidence of ongoing gestation or unusual anatomy supportive of rabbit births. James Douglas, a respected anatomist and man-midwife, examined Toft on November 29, 1726, at Lacy's in , where no new rabbits emerged during his observation; he collaborated with Manningham and identified a porter attempting to smuggle a live into her room, implicating accomplices and confirming external insertion as the mechanism of the . Douglas's findings, including the absence of spontaneous deliveries and detection of tampering, directly undermined claims of or causation. Cyriacus Ahlers, a dispatched by the king, attended on November 20-21, 1726, delivering rabbit parts with difficulty and analyzing dung pellets that contained corn, hay, and straw—indicating the animals' external feeding and origin outside Toft's body—thus early expressing and reporting potential to authorities. These examinations collectively shifted from initial among some figures to empirical disproof through anatomical scrutiny and behavioral observation, exposing the despite the involvement of esteemed practitioners.

Royal Court Interest and Transfer to London

The case of Mary Toft drew the attention of I's court in late 1726 after Nathaniel St. André, anatomist to the king's household, examined her in on November 19 and publicly endorsed the authenticity of her purported rabbit births through a titled A Short Narrative of an Extraordinary Delivery of Rabbits. Prompted by St. André's account, the king dispatched Cyriacus Ahlers, surgeon to the king's German household, to investigate on November 20; Ahlers witnessed several "deliveries" but, upon dissecting the specimens, identified features inconsistent with natural birth—such as lungs resembling those of domesticated rather than wild rabbits—and reported his suspicions of fraud to the king on November 21. Despite Ahlers' doubts, royal intrigue persisted, fueled by St. André's advocacy and broader medical curiosity, leading to arrangements for Toft's transfer to . On November 29, 1726, Toft was transported from Godalming to Lacy's Bagnio in Leicester Fields, London, under St. André's supervision, where she was placed under continuous observation by physicians to verify further births. The bagnio, a bathhouse doubling as a medical facility, allowed for heightened scrutiny amid the escalating national fascination, with St. André anticipating vindication of his earlier claims. However, under this intensified watch, Toft produced no rabbits, prompting growing skepticism among observers, including reports of smuggled animal parts by a porter. The transfer underscored the royal court's initial credulity toward anomalous medical phenomena, reflecting 18th-century tensions between empirical verification and sensational testimony.

Detection and Confession

Emerging Doubts and Anatomical Evidence

As Mary Toft was transferred to London in late November 1726 and placed under close medical observation at Lacy's Bagnio, skepticism began to mount among attending physicians when she ceased producing rabbits despite apparent labor pains. Previously, in Godalming, she had delivered multiple rabbit parts, but in the capital's controlled environment, no further births occurred, raising questions about the authenticity of her claims. Cyriacus Ahlers, the king's German surgeon, had already reported suspicions of fraud to George I on November 21, 1726, after examining rabbit excrement containing undigested corn, hay, and straw—materials consistent with postnatal feeding rather than intrauterine development. Anatomical examinations of the delivered rabbits provided decisive evidence against the notion of true . Dissections revealed that the animals' stomachs held hay, grass, and other foods ingested shortly before death, which would be impossible for fetuses nourished solely via placental connection. Rabbits of varying developmental stages were produced, including near-term fetuses alongside juveniles estimated at up to three months old, an incompatibility with a single timeline. James Douglas, a prominent anatomist, conducted detailed postmortem analyses in late November 1726 and publicly declared the phenomenon a , citing the absence of fetal malformations expected from and the presence of external contaminants in the specimens. Sir Richard Manningham, another key examiner, corroborated these findings during observations starting November 29, 1726, noting the lack of physiological signs of ongoing hybrid , such as appropriate uterine expansion or placental tissue. These anatomical inconsistencies, combined with the failure to replicate earlier "deliveries" under scrutiny, eroded support among the medical establishment. The rabbits' digestive tracts showed of recent meals matching those provided at local inns, further indicating manual insertion of pre-killed animals rather than natural birth. Such empirical observations shifted the narrative from marvel to , prompting intensified .

Toft's Confession and Accomplices' Roles

On 7 December 1726, under interrogation at Lacy's Bagnio in London by Justice of the Peace Thomas Clarges and in the presence of physicians including James Douglas and Sir Richard Manningham, Mary Toft confessed to fabricating the rabbit births. She admitted manually inserting pieces of dissected rabbits into her vagina, which were then extracted during simulated labors to mimic deliveries, a deception sustained for months to gain financial support and attention. Toft provided three dictated confessions on 7, 8, and 12 December 1726, recorded verbatim by Douglas, revealing inconsistencies such as varying origin stories for the hoax—initially claiming inspiration from a knife-grinder's wife who suggested feigning animal births for profit, later attributing it to idle curiosity after witnessing a rabbit hunt. Toft implicated several accomplices, primarily family members and local associates, who supplied rabbits and assisted in preparations. Her brother-in-law Edward Costen, a Godalming laborer, played a central role by procuring young rabbits from local sources, dissecting them into limbs and torsos to simulate progressive birth stages, and delivering the parts to Toft for insertion. Her mother-in-law Ann Toft pressured her to continue the ruse for monetary gain and aided in inserting animal parts during early "deliveries" in Godalming. Sister-in-law Margaret Toft contributed by enlisting a porter, Thomas Howard, to fetch additional rabbits in , an act that prompted Howard's deposition on 4 1726 before Sir Thomas Clarges, providing early evidence of foul play. Mary Costen, a local who attended Toft as her nurse until the London transfer, facilitated extractions of the inserted pieces and later provided a deposition confirming her awareness of the deception, though she claimed initial belief in the births. Other locals, including neighbors Richard Stedman and John Sweetapple, supplied rabbits or witnessed insertions and gave supporting depositions in 1727, detailing Costen's butchery work and the group's coordination to evade detection by credulous physicians. Toft's husband Joshua was minimally involved, primarily transporting her and maintaining silence, while accomplices like Costen and Ann Toft bore primary responsibility for enabling the hoax's anatomical feasibility. These admissions, corroborated by rabbit lungs traced to a source via surgeon James Ahlers' dissection on 20 November 1726, dismantled the fraud, leading to Toft's for imposture under a of Edward III.

Immediate Aftermath

Legal Consequences for Toft

On December 9, 1726, following her confession to the , Mary Toft was charged with relevant statutes against and imposture, described in court records as a "notorious and vile cheat." She was committed to Bridewell Prison, a facility primarily used for housing vagrants, petty criminals, and those guilty of moral offenses, where inmates often performed forced labor such as spinning or stone-breaking. Toft's imprisonment lasted several weeks, during which she was reportedly exhibited to crowds of paying visitors, turning her detention into a public spectacle that underscored the era's blend of and . Despite the deception's scale and the involvement of accomplices like her mother-in-law, Toft alone faced formal repercussions, with no prosecutions recorded against medical figures or assistants. She was released without a full , a common outcome for such cases in early 18th-century where summary justice prevailed for non-capital frauds, avoiding prolonged legal proceedings amid waning public interest. Post-release, Toft returned to , where she lived unobtrusively and later bore legitimate children, evading further legal scrutiny.

Professional Repercussions for Physicians

Nathaniel St. André, surgeon-anatomist to King George I, suffered the most severe professional fallout from his endorsement of Mary Toft's claims. He published A Short of an Extraordinary Delivery of Rabbets on December 3, 1726, affirming the authenticity of the rabbit births after witnessing several. Following Toft's confession between December 7 and 12, 1726, St. André issued newspaper retractions on December 9 but lost royal favor, with patients abandoning his practice. His reputation irreparably damaged, he faced widespread ridicule in satirical prints and pamphlets, retiring to where he died in poverty in an in March 1776. Sir Richard Manningham, a prominent man-midwife, largely escaped lasting harm due to his early skepticism; he threatened invasive examination to elicit Toft's confession and published a emphasizing his doubts. James Douglas, an anatomist who observed parts but later voiced reservations in an Advertisement, also preserved his standing, continuing anatomical research without noted career interruption. Local physician , an initial believer, faced dropped fraud charges and retained local respect in . The affair prompted defensive publications from many involved physicians to salvage credibility amid public mockery, including William Hogarth's 1726 etching Cunicularii, or the Wise-Men of Godliman in Consultation, lampooning the profession's gullibility. This episode heightened medical wariness toward extraordinary claims, fostering demands for empirical verification over hasty assertions.

Long-Term Impact and Legacy

Effects on Medical Credibility and Practices

The exposure of Mary Toft's deception on December 7, 1726, precipitated intense public mockery of physicians' gullibility, as prominent figures like Nathaniel St. André, surgeon to King George I, had publicly affirmed her supposed deliveries of s and animal parts. Satirical engravings and s, such as those depicting credulous doctors in consultation over rabbit births, amplified this ridicule, eroding trust in authority and highlighting vulnerabilities in professional judgment. St. André's endorsement, detailed in his 1727 A Short of an Extraordinary Delivery of Rabbets, proved particularly damaging; his career collapsed, leading to retirement and death in an in poverty by 1773. The underscored flaws in contemporary evidentiary practices, prompting physicians to advocate for stricter empirical methods, including anatomical to verify claims of monstrous births. Examinations revealing mature rabbits with ingested food—impossible for fetal development—exposed reliance on superficial observations and theories like maternal impressions, where a pregnant woman's desires supposedly shaped offspring. This shifted discourse toward skepticism of unverified testimonies in . Intellectually, the affair spurred publications reinforcing over speculative physiology; James Blondel's The Strength of Imagination in Pregnant Women Examin’d (1727) directly refuted as a cause of births, using Toft's case to demand evidence-based rebuttals and influencing debates on reproductive anomalies into the mid-18th century. Such reflections contributed to broader Enlightenment-era demands for verifiable data in , diminishing toward prodigious claims without rigorous anatomical proof.

Cultural and Historical Interpretations

The Mary Toft hoax elicited widespread satirical commentary in 1726–1727 through pamphlets and prints that mocked the physicians' . Works such as The Doctors in Labour portrayed the medical figures involved in farcical predicaments, underscoring the absurdity of their endorsement of the rabbit births. Similarly, Jonathan Swift's The Anatomist Dissected lampooned the affair, contributing to a broader cultural ridicule of scientific overreach. In visual art, the event influenced William Hogarth's Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism (1762), where a figure birthing rabbits symbolized fanaticism and credulity, extending the hoax's critique to religious and intellectual spheres decades later. Earlier prints like Cunicularii, or the Wise-Men of Godliman in Consultation (1726) directly caricatured the consultations around Toft, highlighting tensions between empirical medicine and popular wonder. Historically, the case is viewed as a cautionary episode in the history of , revealing the profession's susceptibility to extraordinary claims amid debates over maternal theories, which posited that a pregnant woman's visions could deform the . This prompted skeptical tracts, including James Blondel's The Strength of Imagination in Pregnant Women Examin’d (1727), which used the to argue against such notions and advocate for anatomical evidence. Modern interpretations emphasize gendered dimensions, portraying Toft as a marginalized figure whose hoax involved genuine physical trauma—reportedly 17 insertions and extractions of rabbit parts, risking —while orchestrated by male and female accomplices for gain, reflecting limited female in early 18th-century society. The affair also underscored public distrust of male midwives encroaching on traditional female domains. In literature, the hoax has endured as a motif of and belief, inspiring novels such as Dexter Palmer's Mary Toft; or, The Rabbit Queen (), which fictionalizes the psychological motivations behind the within the era's medical and social context. Overall, Toft's story persists as an exemplar of how es expose epistemic vulnerabilities, influencing discussions on evidence and authority in science and culture.

References

  1. [1]
    Mary Tofts (1703-1763) - Godalming Museum
    Jul 5, 2025 · Mary Toft or Tofts (1703-1763), became well-known as the lady who gave birth to rabbits. She was baptized in Godalming on the 21st February 1703.Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  2. [2]
    Mary Toft and Her Extraordinary Delivery of Rabbits
    Mar 20, 2013 · Niki Russell tells of the events of an elaborate 18th century hoax which had King George I's own court physicians fooled.Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
  3. [3]
    https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62720
  4. [4]
    What Mary Toft Felt: Women's Voices, Pain, Power and the Body
    Sep 23, 2015 · Though a hoax, it is important to note that Mary Toft did experience a sequence of real deliveries: animal parts were placed inside her vagina ( ...
  5. [5]
    The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits, a History of Hell and Other ...
    Apr 3, 2020 · Despite others' probable involvement in the hoax, Toft was the only one punished for it. Sentenced to several weeks in Bridewell Prison, she ...
  6. [6]
    Mary Toft: The Woman Who Birthed Rabbits - Burials & Beyond
    May 28, 2020 · On 7thJanuary 1727, Mary appeared at the Courts of Quarter Sessions and Westminster, charged 'for being an abominable cheat and imposter in ...Missing: outcome reliable
  7. [7]
    [PDF] What Mary Toft felt - University of Birmingham's Research Portal
    In Godalming, and later in London, Mary Toft was attended by at least six ... MARY TOFT'S VOICE. Mary Toft was born on 21 February 1703 to John and Jane Denyer.
  8. [8]
    What Mary Toft Felt: Women's Voices, Pain, Power and the Body - NIH
    Sep 23, 2015 · Toft's 'account' was given in response to his 'several Questions'. She explained that on 23 April, she was weeding in a field with other women ...
  9. [9]
    Mary Toft and An Extraordinary Delivery of Rabbits - The Devil's Tale
    Mar 19, 2025 · Mary Toft was a 25-year-old poor, illiterate servant from Surrey who became pregnant in 1726 but apparently miscarried in August 1726 after an encounter with a ...Missing: outcome reliable
  10. [10]
    Life in England in the 18th Century - Local Histories
    In the 18th century, probably half the population lived at subsistence or bare survival level. In the early 18th century, England suffered from gin drinking. It ...Society In 18th Century... · Agriculture In 18th Century... · Leisure In The 18th Century<|separator|>
  11. [11]
    What Was It Like to Live in 18th-Century England? - Ancestry.com
    18th-century England had rich and poor lifestyles. The poor faced high child mortality and simple housing, while the rich lived luxuriously. Poor diet was ...
  12. [12]
    Maternal imagination | Benefits & Effects on Child Development
    The theory of maternal imagination hinges on the belief that women's bodies are highly susceptible to powerful external events. Tales about such susceptibility ...
  13. [13]
    5.5 Birthmark and blemish: The doctrine of maternal imagination
    Abstract. The assumption that conceiving or pregnant women may harm their fetus by uncontrolled imagination originated in many cultures.
  14. [14]
    Congenital malformations: from superstition to understanding
    Oct 26, 2012 · This concept is reflected in the term “monster,” probably derived ... By the eighteenth century superstition still dominated public ...
  15. [15]
    Giving Birth in Eighteenth-Century England | Historical Transactions
    Apr 13, 2022 · The cycle of eighteenth-century birthing began and concluded much earlier and later than the delivery of a child, and extended well beyond the confines of the ...
  16. [16]
    Obstetrics in the eighteenth century
    In the eighteenth century, obstetrics became a special branch of medicine, with a corpus of physiological and practical knowledge sufficient to improve the ...
  17. [17]
    Call the midwife?- pregnacy and childbirth in the 17th century
    Mar 7, 2017 · Initially they were called in to help with difficult deliveries, but by 1720 'man midwives' and doctors were beginning to attend normal ...
  18. [18]
    Maternal Imagination: Reconceiving First Impressions
    At its height, enthusiasm for the notion of maternal imagination cor- responded with a period in western Europe roughly between the late Six- teenth and first ...<|separator|>
  19. [19]
    Mary Toft staged an elaborate hoax, but the pain was real.
    Jul 3, 2019 · Historians are reexamining the case of the woman who gave birth to rabbits. Mary Toft staged an elaborate hoax, but the pain was real.
  20. [20]
    The curious case of Mary Toft - University of Glasgow
    Five months after the Mary Toft affair was exposed as a hoax, James ... deception of giving birth to rabbits. Amanuensis, (?)G. Douglas.MS Hunter ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
  21. [21]
    MARY TOFT-THE RABBIT BREEDER - Cambridge University Press
    This offer was keenly accepted by Mr. St. Andre. Mr. St. Andre came from Switzerland. During his early days in England he had kept himself by ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  22. [22]
    A hare-raising tale - Royal College of Surgeons
    Mar 29, 2018 · The story of Mary Toft of Guildford who, in 1726, claimed she had given birth to rabbits, causing considerable notoriety.
  23. [23]
    Magical Source: Mary Toft's Confessions - Birmingham Blogs
    Jun 7, 2022 · Mary Toft's three 'confessions' were new to me. These were taken down by James Douglas, a doctor present on these three occasions that Toft was ...
  24. [24]
    The Rabbit Babies of Mary Toft (1726) - The Museum of Hoaxes
    Dec 21, 2014 · She was briefly imprisoned for fraud, but was released without trial. It is said that she managed to give birth to a normal, human child ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Women and Protest in Mary Toft's monstrous births of 1726 - Pure
    ... Mary Toft's deliveries were of rabbits exclusively. Nonetheless, Mary Toft's own explanation of her generation of rabbits cast the hoax as an instance of ...
  26. [26]
    Scientist of the Day - Mary Toft, Rabbit Hoax - Linda Hall Library
    Jan 13, 2022 · Mary Toft, an English country maidservant, died Jan. 13, 1763, at the age of about 62. She lived in the market-town of Godalming in Surrey, southwest of London.
  27. [27]
    Birthing Bunnies: An 18th-Century Woman's Bizarre Medical Hoax
    Nov 19, 2019 · MARY TOFT; Or, The Rabbit Queen By Dexter Palmer. In 1726, in Godalming, England, Mary Toft “gave birth” to bits of a rabbit.Missing: initial | Show results with:initial<|separator|>