Re: Of dogs and owner's graves (Darwin related)
- From: *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:13:26 -0800
On Nov 11, 12:10 am, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:54 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:If such stories were in common circulation and Darwin actually may
On Nov 10, 8:37 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 10, 10:57 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm now reading Janet Browne's two volume magnum opus on Darwin. In
the first volume called _Voyaging_ she talks a lot aout medical
schooling history in Britain, especilly Edinburgh and grave-robbery
related to securing corpses to be used as anatomy cadavers (ie- the
Burke and Hare case). These stories seem to set the tone for later
horror stories of popular culture. She references Stevenson's _Body-
Snatchers_.
Anyway she makes a passing reference that wasn't explicit on the story
of Greyfriar's Bobby, about the dog who dutyfully stayed by his
master's grave upon his death, but seems to imply this story. Browne
writes (p. 59): "Just across the road at Greyfriars' Church there was
the disturbing sight of a watchtower; and the stories of dogs guarding
their masters' graves probably stirred Charles Darwin's sentimental
heart."
There's a possible timeline problem here. The well known story related
to Greyfriar's is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars_Bobby
Note the date the owner of the famed terrier died...1858. This was a
year before the _Origin_ was published thus a time period well after
that when Darwin was schooling (pre-Beagle) in Edinburgh (ca.
1820's?). Unless dogs sitting by their masters' graves was a common
thing in that area for some reason, I wonder if Browne got it wrong a
bit. I wonder if she picked up on the Greyfriar's Bobby theme from
direct reading or indirectly through a movie or something...
Or maybe dogs are loyal in that part of the UK and one sees them at
the graveside all the time.
Well, as I read the quoted passage, it neither states that these
stories played an important part in forming Darwin's character, or
that these stories were strictly accurate; all Janet Browne says is
that "[these] stories ... probably stirred Charles Darwin's
sentimental heart." There may well have been stories of dogs behaving
that way long before Greyfriar's Bobby, or, conversely, stories
modelled on or adapted from the story of Greyfriar's Bobby may have
touched Darwin's cynophilic heart long after he'd first published
_Origin of Species_.
But the way I take it, she was placing this in the context of Darwin's
Edinburgh days. I wonder if she watched the movie "The Body Snatcher"
in mentally preparng the backstory for this part of the book? I'm
perhaps wrong, but maybe correct. Why would she mention an oblique
allusion to Greyfriar's Bobby in this part of the biography? It does
tie the regional 1820's horror4 of medically inspired grave robbing
and outright murder to a sweet 1868+ story of a loyal terrier watching
over his master's grave. At least in the movie it is implied (via
shadows) that Robby puts up a helluva fight before being brutally
dispatched by the grave robber coming for his master's buried body.
But it was still a gross perversion of the Bobby story!
Well, she may have messed up. Or, again, such stories may have been
in circulation for years before Greyfriar Bobby's name became attached
to them.
have heard of them in 1820's Edinburgh, I'd be interested in a cite.
But the take home message was that these negative aspects of Edinburgh
med student life were somewhat repulsive to Darwin and he moved on to
bigger and better things at Cambridge...
I'm wondering why Stevenson referred to him as Mr. K_____ and not
Funny thing that in the transformation between Stevenson's story the
name of Mr. K_____ in Stevenson's written story becomes Dr. Knox in
the movie.
Well, wasn't there a real-life "Dr. Knox" at the medical school in
Edinburgh who was a loyal and enthusiastic customer of Burke and Hare
(procurers of cadavers who, towards the end of their career, turned to
procuring living bodies, and then killing them)?
Knox. Was this a part o the story where the name was not to be named
explicitly or was Stevenson worried about backlash if he used Knox's
name. The movie, years later, is much bolder and explicitly references
Knox's name.
Knox wasn't found guilty of anything was he? Was it more a loss of
reputation in his case? I'm not familiar enough with the details of
the Burke and Hare murders to know, but it does set the scene for
Darwin's experiences in the theatre.
These days there are ethical issues surrounding the procurement and
usage of dissection animals. I didn't have any issues dissectingcats
in anatomy classes (nor dogfish or mudpuppies). These days people are
really against dissection of animals in academic settings.
I don' t think I could deal with human dssection. The thought of
cutting into dead bodies gives me the creeps. I think I'm with Darwin
on this one. Veterinary school would be more to my liking than med
school.
But wasn't Darwin opposed to the anti-vivisectionists of his time? I
think I'm with him here also, for the most part. How could someone
become a good veternarian without having dissected animals or
surgically working on live animals in a teaching setting?
.
- References:
- Of dogs and owner's graves (Darwin related)
- From: *Hemidactylus*
- Re: Of dogs and owner's graves (Darwin related)
- From: *Hemidactylus*
- Of dogs and owner's graves (Darwin related)
- Prev by Date: Re: freedom is still real
- Next by Date: Re: Antony Flew's new book
- Previous by thread: Re: Of dogs and owner's graves (Darwin related)
- Next by thread: Re: Of dogs and owner's graves (Darwin related)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
