This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Further into Imperfecta Living Curiosities: Agency and Exploitation of the Teratological Body Curiosity draws us to the monstrous. But seeing is believing: whether in a book, a museum, or in a show, for centuries people have flocked to see “monsters” for themselves. In the 19th century, many people born with non-normative bodies performed as “freaks” in circus sideshows. Circuses became a sensation and they served as a forerunner to the modern entertainment industry. This exhibit explores the lives of the performers and showmen whose livelihoods depended on the public’s curiosity about seeing wondrous bodies for themselves. Seeing is Believing: Visualizing the Teratological Body When it comes to the wondrous, seeing is believing. From this page, you can explore some of the ways that “monsters” have been depicted over the centuries. Woodcuts in early modern texts, preservation in medical museums, and photography all have been used to display people. These technologies allowed one person’s image to travel across the world and allowed their subjects to “survive” beyond death. What Does It Mean to be "Other?" What does it mean to be a “monster?” What does it mean to be “normal?” These are not objective categories. They have changed meaning throughout history as people have become exposed to a wider diversity of nature, people, and ideas. From this path, you can explore some types of “Otherness” that have, throughout history, challenged apparently objective categories and shaped the direction of science.

Hühnermensch, or “Chicken man."

This page is referenced by:

The Turner/Blondel Debate and Beyond The 18th Century began with an attempt to reconcile traditional beliefs with the new methods of scientific inquiry. James Augustus Blondel (ca. 1666-1734), wrote a much read response to the Toft case titled The strength of imagination in pregnant women examin'd (1729), which you can read in its entirety on our digital library. Blondel observed that impressions often occurred for which no mark or anomaly followed, and that many abnormal births occurred for which no impression could be alleged.

Blondel’s response to the Toft case sparked a public debate between him and a Dr. Daniel Turner (1667-1741). Turner was a British physician who wrote on diseases of the skin as well as a number of surgical manuals. In response to Blondel, Turner wrote a pamphlet that recounted many supposed cases of maternal impression, including those told by Fienus and Malebranche. Blondel was the victor in this exchange, resulting in a perceptible change in attitude throughout England. Bondel's work was translated into French, Italian, German and Dutch. This resulted in other pamphlets appearing throughout Europe that also refuted maternal impression.

William Smellie (1697-1763), was a famed Scottish man-midwife whose work A treatise on the theory and practice of midwifery is a foundational text in obstetrics. In the work, Smellie echoed one of Blondel’s main arguments against maternal impression. Smellie states, “I have delivered many women of children who retained no marks, although the mothers had been frightened and surprised by disagreeable objects and were extremely apprehensive about such consequences.” Smellie’s vast influence on the burgeoning field of obstetrics, and the reach of his treatise, helped to solidify Blondel’s ideas.

This shift in perspective in the 18th century is exemplified by the case of the Hühnermensch, or “Chicken man." In 1735, in a small town near Leipzig, Germany, 28-year-old Johanna Sophia Schmeid delivered a stillborn baby, her fourth child. This baby was born with numerous physical anomalies, including a comb-like structure on the head; large, round eyes; and hands with lengthy fingers and “claws exactly like those of a chicken.” A local physician, Gottlieb Friderici (1693 – 1742), performed an autopsy and published his findings in the essay, Monstrorum humanum rarissimum, or The rarest of human monsters (1737). The essay included detailed anatomical drawings and a proto-case study of the pregnancy.

Friderici noted the physical nature of Schmeid (short, slender, with a “choleric-melancholic” temperament) and the physical nature of her husband, whom Friderici noted as being a “hunchback.” Friderici also examined Schmeid’s three prior pregnancies, and compared them to the fourth. It was noted that this fourth pregnancy did not progress as did the prior three, with fetal movements ceasing midway through the pregnancy.

While Friderici concluded that the deformities were the result of crossbreeding between human and rooster, attributable to some form of maternal impression, it is important to note that his detailed autopsy, and his examination of the Schmeid’s minor dysmorphic features, provided the first detailed description of Roberts syndrome, a genetic condition that would not be conclusively defined until 1919.