4 ms·
Because he (and also his friend) were into science. And that meant dissections. But those were illegal at the time. So people did them in secret.
by LatteLazy 3y ago
Because he (and also his friend) were into science. And that meant dissections. But those were illegal at the time. So people did them in secret.
- jwestbury 3y agoDissections were not illegal. However, legal sources of cadavers were uncommon. This is a subtle but important distinction. Unfortunately, it means the source of most cadavers was grave-robbing, which hopefully we can agree is not the most morally savoury of sources?
- danuker 3y agoI agree that grave-robbing is illegal. But I'd have no moral qualms with robbing the grave of someone with no living relatives. It's not like they're gonna mind. We all get recycled in the end.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- esperent 3y agoFrom what I understand, they robbed the graves of paupers - people who were too poor to afford marked graves. Which is not at all the same thing as having no living relatives.
- RobotToaster 3y agoTechnically it's body snatching, grave robbing is removing valuables from a grave. Body snatching was historically just a misdemeanour, while grave robbing was a felony, so body snatchers would usually leave valuables and just take the body.
- jwestbury 3y agoThanks for the clarification!
- morninglight 3y agoBenjamin Franklin, Tomb Raider?
- pyuser583 3y agoWow I learn all sorts of cool things on this site. Now I just have to figure out how to work this into a conversation.
- LatteLazy 3y agoI think it is really unclear whether it was legal or not (and comes down to definition of those things). Parliament legalised dissections of humans under some circumstances in the 1800s. Before that it was treated as illegal, but I don't think there was an actual statute against it (maybe it was the common law?). Some laws before that specifically allowed it in some circumstances though (you could dissect people convicted and executed for murder for instance). It's a mess... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrectionists_in_the_United_Kingdom#Anatomy_Act_1832 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrectionists_in_the_United... The same article lists cases of people being lynched for it, so best to just not be caught I think...
- aziaziazi 3y agoThanks for the TLDR! For what I know dissections of human body are still restricted in most countries and is not a common form of entertainment. What a fun epoch Franklin lived in: science experiments was a high society interest that people engage in. Now high-tech-apple-vision rhymes with consumption.
- wildzzz 3y agoAcademic pursuits was really only something for the wealthy, land-owning class back then. Books were expensive. Public libraries were not common. Public schooling wasn't even widespread and certainly wasn't a path to higher learning. People of academic or political fame from history were usually either people of the clergy (who had nothing better to do during the day) or the wealthy who didn't really have to work. Your average tradesman or farmer had neither the time nor resources to do any research or learning outside of what was required for their job. It's amazing how many resources are available to even the poorest of the poor nowadays. Access to the Internet at a library opens so many opportunities for learning that simply was not available to most years ago. College is still out of reach for many but there are still programs meant to help the people afford college. It's not college was expensive back then but simply being accepted required you to be part of the upper class. Joining the clergy offered better opportunities to the middle class to pursue learning. Being poor meant your descendants were probably going to be poor for a long time.