tymology[edit]

A polemical allegory presented as a five-headed monster, 1618

Monster derives from the Latin monstrum, itself derived ultimately from the verb moneo ("to

remind, warn, instruct, or foretell"), and denotes anything "strange or singular, contrary to the
usual course of nature, by which the gods give notice of evil," "a strange, unnatural, hideous
person, animal, or thing," or any "monstrous or unusual thing, circumstance, or adventure." [2]

Cultural heritage[edit]
In the words of Tina Marie Boyer, assistant professor of medieval German literature at Wake
Forest University, "monsters do not emerge out of a cultural void; they have a literary and
cultural heritage".[3]
In the religious context of ancient Greeks and Romans, monsters were seen as signs of
"divine displeasure", and it was thought that birth defects were especially ominous, being "an
unnatural event" or "a malfunctioning of nature". [4]
Monsters are not necessarily abominations however. The Roman historian Suetonius, for
instance, describes a snake's absence of legs or a bird's ability to fly as monstrous, as both
are "against nature".[5] Nonetheless, the negative connotations of the word quickly
established themselves, and by the playwright and philosopher Seneca's time, the word had
extended into its philosophical meaning, "a visual and horrific revelation of the truth". [6]
In spite of this, mythological monsters such as the Hydra and Medusa are not natural beings,
but divine entities. This seems to be a holdover from Proto-Indo-European religion and other
belief systems, in which the divisions between "spirit," "monster," and "god" were less
evident.