PDA

View Full Version : Unorthodox Practitioners - Anatomical Museums Suppressed.


Pilgrim
11-07-2008, 05:34 PM
In the early-nineteenth century the lay press had been suspicious of continental wax anatomical figures; the Literary Gazette of 1825 claimed that one anatomy exhibition was “a pretence” for showing off a “filthy French figure”. French waxwork-makers produced erotic nudes as well as anatomical moulages, and when English exhibitors of anatomical waxworks described them, correctly, as “French”, or “Parisian”, they were probably intentionally, if misleadingly, hinting at continental naughtiness.

...

Most of those prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act (1857) were pornographers, and anatomy museums were probably tainted by association. Medical men, provoked by museum proprietors who belittled conventional remedies and abused the medical profession, claimed that museums disseminated “filthy” and “dirty” literature that promoted the sexual behaviour of which it purported to disapprove.

...

Obscenity laws enabled the medical profession to recommend prosecution of museums in an apparently disinterested manner, by claiming their advertisements contained “descriptions suggestive to the youthful imagination of the very evils they pretend to deplore” and that readers would be “contaminated by … this moral poison”, though London police and magistrates remained apparently unconcerned, despite an appeal to the new Metropolitan Commissioner of Police from the British Medical Association in 1869 to close down the West End anatomy museums.

...

The Obscene Publications Act was a powerful instrument for medical anti-quackery campaigners, because material deemed obscene if placed before a general audience was considered acceptable for professional men. In 1867, the Chief Justice had stated that: “A medical treatise, with illustrations necessary for the information of those whose education or information the work is intended, may, in a certain sense, be obscene, and yet not the subject for indictment; but it can never be that these prints can be exhibited for anyone, boys or girls, to see as they pass.” The police seized some of the Kahn's models and charged the museum's proprietors with “exhibiting certain indecent and demoralising representations for the purpose of gain”. Though the proprietors argued in the magistrates’ court that the museum “was of a scientific and medical character”, they retracted their “not guilty” pleas after the case was referred to the Queen's Bench, and the models were destroyed. Woodhead's museum, which had re-opened in Liverpool, was tolerated by the local Medical Reform Association, who in 1871 used it as a venue for examinations, but it was prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act in 1874, after it moved to Manchester. To Woodhead's justification “that the Royal College of Surgeons possesses, and admits the public to, an exhibition similar to his own”, the magistrate replied that “he could understand museums of the character of the defendant's being connected with the hospitals and medical colleges, but when they came into the hands of private individuals they were likely to produce serious evils”.

“Indecent and Demoralising Representations”: Public Anatomy Museums in mid-Victorian England (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2175054)

~~~

Public anatomical exhibitions in nineteenth-century England

Sarti London: Margaret Street, Regent Street; Huddersfield; Boston (Lincolnshire) 1839–50, 1854

Kahn London: 315 Oxford Street; 232 Piccadilly; 4 Coventry St; 3 Titchborne Street 1851–72

Caplin 58 Berners Street, London 1851–63

Reimers Leicester Square, London 1852–3

Woodhead Sheffield; Liverpool; Manchester 1854–74

Marston 369 Oxford Street, London 1859–62

Hamilton 404 Oxford Street, London 1865–6

Harvey and Co. Hanover Square, London 1867

~~~

With the exception of French state medical education under Napoleon, teaching by means of anatomical models never proved popular with the medical profession as an alternative to dissection, probably because learning from books and models rather than from real bodies was considered the pis aller of unorthodox practitioners.

Anatomical Venuses: The Aesthetics of Anatomical Modelling in 18th- and 19th-Century Europe (http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:DbtTsoKelSQJ:www.ishm2006.hu/scientific/abstract.php%3FID%3D59+Anatomical+Venuses:+The+Aes thetics+of+Anatomical+Modelling+in+18th-+and+19th-Century+Europe&cd=1&hl=no&ct=clnk&gl=no&client=firefox-a)

~~~

Antoine Wiertz - Last Thoughts and Visions / (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/art/wiertz.html)Bioephemera - Invading Hands & Sleeping Beauties (http://bioephemera.com/2007/11/24/invading-hands-sleeping-beauties/)

Pilgrim
07-30-2009, 08:18 PM
'Anatomical Venuses' are extremely realistic models of idealised women. These figures consist of removable parts that can be 'dissected' - a breast plate is lifted to reveal the internal organs, often with a fetus in the womb. In the 19th century, the anatomical Venus formed the centrepiece of museums and travelling shows of all kinds, and possessed great power to draw crowds. 'Know thyself' was a common phrase associated with the exhibition of such models, suggesting their educational value.

Exquisite Bodies: 30 July - 18 October. (http://www.wellcomecollection.org/exhibitionsandevents/exhibitions/Exquisite-Bodies/index.htm)

Howard Brown
07-30-2009, 09:03 PM
Dear Pilgrim:

This is very interesting ( I've known a few women whose heads were like wax...:playball:).

This reminds me of one of our posters who commented on the possibility of the Ripper wanting to know how "things worked' inside a woman.

Is that where you got the idea for this thread,because it ties in with that concept pretty neatly...?

Thanks Pilgrim !:high5:

How

SirRobertAnderson
07-30-2009, 10:15 PM
This reminds me of one of our posters who commented on the possibility of the Ripper wanting to know how "things worked' inside a woman.

How

That wuz me ripping off something A.P. Wolf once said: that he imagined the Ripper as a curious child opening up a toy to see how it worked.

I don't want to put words in his mouth but it is one point of view that would look at the crimes - despite being on women - as not being not sex crimes.

Howard Brown
07-31-2009, 04:56 AM
Bob:

I knew that I had seen this before...and thanks for reminding me.:kiss:

admin tim
07-31-2009, 09:23 AM
Did the Ripper rip open his victims just “to see how they run", as serial killer Edward Kemper put it?

Pilgrim
08-01-2009, 08:49 AM
Dear Pilgrim:

This is very interesting ( I've known a few women whose heads were like wax...:playball:).

This reminds me of one of our posters who commented on the possibility of the Ripper wanting to know how "things worked' inside a woman.

Is that where you got the idea for this thread,because it ties in with that concept pretty neatly...?

Thanks Pilgrim !:high5:

HowThe possibility that you're mentioning may certainly have been among the reasons. But of the reasons I do remember, there were two: Though it seems the anatomical museums were shut down sometime around 1870 in the UK, the existence of these exhibits does show yet another way of acquiring the "anatomical knowledge" that might be relevant to this case. The other reason, and in my view perhaps more important: The presence of the anatomical museums and their exhibits of "alluring female figures that could be stripped and split into different sections" (http://www.wellcomecollection.org/exhibitionsandevents/exhibitions/Exquisite-Bodies/index.htm) probably would say something about late Victorian culture and morality, as would the fact that the UK museums were shut down.

...

In many rituals the sacrificial act assumes two opposing aspects, appearing at times as a sacred obligation to be neglected at grave peril, at other times as a sort of criminal activity entailing perils of equal gravity. Because the victim is sacred, it is criminal to kill him - but the victim is sacred only because he is to be killed. Here is a circular line of reasoning that at a somewhat later date would be dignified with the sonorous term ambivalence. Persuasive and authoritative as that term still appears, it has been so extraordinarily abused in our century that perhaps we may now recognize how little light it sheds on the subject of sacrifice. Certainly it provides no real explanation. When we speak of ambivalence, we are only pointing out a problem that remains to be solved.

René Girard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard), Violence and the sacred, p.1. (http://books.google.com/books?id=RGVKsW5rQ1kC&dq=rene+girard+violence+and+the+sacred&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=iU21GgueK_&sig=Iq5CMGv_wdtNMFOT5CIznm0ML8s&hl=en&ei=6Dh0SuzBJ8bP-Qb7zOywCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

~~~

http://stclementshrine.org/assets/images/Sacred%20Heart%20of%20Jesus.jpg (http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=75305#post75305)