From Cincinnati Enquirer 8 August 1897, Image extracted from microfilm by Greg Hand
On the day Emma Beyer was born in 1882, her family suspected something was seriously wrong with her eyes. Emma’s father told the Cincinnati Enquirer [8 August 1897]:
“When Emma was born, we thought for a time that she would be blind, as a film appeared over both eyes. After a few weeks this film gradually disappeared until she was able to see a little, and by degrees it was entirely removed.”
Once her eyes were fully visible, the family discovered that little Emma was a most amazing freak of nature. According to the Enquirer [29 April 1888]:
“She possesses eyes of such peculiarity that, as a curiosity, she surpasses any human being ever born. In her left eye is a perfect form of a doll baby, handsomely dressed, and with features positively beautiful. In the right eye is a miniature crescent. These strange features are not imaginative, but plainly to be seen, and can be readily distinguished at a distance of four or five feet.”
Emma herself appeared to possess very good, if not perfect, sight. She did not require glasses and could identify items at some distance. According to the census, she could read and write. Her distinct appearance was a matter of pride, even at the age of six, when she bounded into the room on hearing there was a visitor and asked the reporter:
“Have you come to see the doll baby in my eye?”
Emma’s eyes attracted the scientific inquiry of Doctor William Riley Amick, an ophthalmologist at the Cincinnati College of Medicine and Surgery, who wrote a detailed description, with illustrations, in the local medical journal, Lancet & Clinic [22 November 1884]. Doctor Amick devoted nearly three pages of densely packed medical jargon toward classifying Emma’s condition, suggesting that it was neither a coloboma, or hole in one of the structures of the eye, nor a polycoria, a pathological condition characterized by more than one pupil. Intriguingly, the good doctor was compelled to describe – if only to discount – some rather antique hypotheses as to the origin of Emma’s eye condition:
From Cincinnati Enquirer 29 April 1888, Image extracted from microfilm by Greg Hand
“In the remote ages of the past, it was supposed that when a child was born with a deformity of some of the organs, or a malposition, or a parasite, it was a visitation of divine vengeance, the result of an angry Deity. Again, witchcraft was assigned as the cause. These and other superstitious beliefs were held to be the cause of malformations. Maternal impressions are recognized at present as entering into the cause of certain deformities.”
That last sentence is particularly intriguing because Emma’s father certainly attributed Emma’s condition to “maternal impressions.” He told the Enquirer:
“Before Emma was born her mother used to go to the Findlay Street Market, and on her way to and from the market stalls used to stop and look for hours at the Christmas array of dolls in the shop windows.”
Emma’s mother, however, confided in Doctor Amrick that she had an alternate theory as to what caused Emma’s condition. Strangely, it appears that the academic ophthalmologist was unwilling to dismiss this theory outright:
“In the case we have presented, the mother assigns as a cause of Emma’s misfortune, that during gestation she had considerable anxiety and trouble, and spent a considerable portion of the time in crying and rubbing her eyes, until they became red and congested. At the same time that we will not deny that a maternal impression during gestation might influence the condition of the eyes, yet we look upon this case as an error in the development of the irides. Whether this error was predisposed by the mental anxiety and weeping, we are agnostic, and simply call it a congenital malformation.”
Whatever the cause of Emma’s “baby doll” iris, her family realized their anomalous daughter might be the ticket to financial security.
“Mr. Beyer, in a talk to the Enquirer reporter about Emma, stated that it was his intention to place her on exhibition as soon as she becomes old enough to travel. He thinks that she will be the greatest attraction of the kind that has ever been shown in this country.”
For some reason, Emma never became a sideshow exhibit either locally or as part of some itinerant freak show. Perhaps the Beyer family just didn’t need the money. Michael Beyer, Emma’s father, had a decent job as an iceman and sometimes worked as a blacksmith. She had two significantly older brothers who lived at home and who also had solid employment.
It could be that Emma’s health might have prevented her from joining the circus. She contracted smallpox as an infant and scarlet fever as a toddler, two diseases that can cause long-term health issues.
From Cincinnati Enquirer 8 August 1897, Image extracted from microfilm by Greg Hand
The family may also have soured on show business because of at least two attempts to kidnap the poor girl. According to the Enquirer:
“Not long ago a well-dressed man snatched her up in front of their home, at Budd and Harriet streets, but the screams of a crowd of children who were playing with her so frightened the rascal that he dropped his precious steal, and, running down through the railway yards, escaped.”
The family told the Enquirer that suspicious looking men were frequently spotted lurking around the neighborhood.
Emma never married and there are hints that she was chronically ill. She died on Christmas Day in 1904, at the age of 22. Her death was caused by kidney disease or nephritis, leading to an extreme type of edema or swelling. Emma was preceded in death by her father, who succumbed to liver cancer in 1900, and followed by her mother, who also suffered from edema, probably caused by a heart condition. They are all buried together at Spring Grove Cemetery.
Facebook Comments