Our Very First iBook
There's a new edition of The Smart Aleck's Guide to Grave Robbing available on the ibook store today! Newly formatted just for iPads, with more colorful illustrations. We had some trouble convincing them that this was a text book. Most likely, we'll continue to do guides in both kindle/nook format and ibook editions, which will be a bit more dynamic and colorful. Shakespeare guides (and others!) are still in production, but we've gotten in a bit over our heads taking other assignments around here. Adam has at least three Chicago history/ghostlore books to write this year, and possibly as many as five!
Poopsmith: The Career for You
While working on our Shakespeare guides, we jotted down a list of Elizabethan job titles. A couple of officials in Shakespeare's day were The Master of Revels (whose job was to make sure that the plays didn't offend anyone - they could be naughty, but not too blasphemous or political) and The Keeper of the Heads (whose job was to keep an eye on the traitor's heads displayed on London Bridge). When we were thinking of "Elizabethan Jobs We'd Like To See," one that came up was "Her Majesty's Royal Poopsmith."
This WAS a real job, though - the official title of one to dug up latrines was "gong farmer." "Gong" was from an old-fashioned word that meant "to go." The pay was low, and gong farmers couldn't live too close to others.
Nice to have something to fall back on if head-keeping doesn't work out.
This WAS a real job, though - the official title of one to dug up latrines was "gong farmer." "Gong" was from an old-fashioned word that meant "to go." The pay was low, and gong farmers couldn't live too close to others.
Nice to have something to fall back on if head-keeping doesn't work out.
Romney and Co. Eat Money
Something we threw together here at HQ with a photo of Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital guys that was in the Boston Globe:
A take off of a famous Nixon poster distributed by Kennedy supporters:
Really, we think the Romney shot is the more damning of the two. The Nixon shot just happens to show him looking kind of sleazy - it's not really much better than making fat jokes about Governor Christie. The Romney one is similar, in that the Mephistopholes look on his face is probably just a coincidence, but what's going on in the picture re-enforces the image of Romney as "that upper management meatball that everyone in the company thinks is incompetent." You can just picture him leaning over your cubicle and saying "What are you working on?" now and then, until the day he comes by and says, "Hi, Adam. Can you come by my office in a little bit for a little sit-down? That'd be great."
History shows that "experience" is not a great indicator of who will be a good president and who won't. Frankly, we've only had a handful who were all that great to start with, so there's no way to pick out a pattern of what sort of background a good president should have (and one can assume that it varies by era, anyway - different kinds of people are needed for different times). Many have been governors or military men, but many of those have also really sucked as president. Lincoln was a country lawyer and a former junior house nobody when he was elected. Eisenhower was a pretty good president who had military experience, but without enough political experience even to have declared which party he was in before the election. Grant was a great general whose experience didn't end up translating well. Herbert Hoover was one of the most successful and respected men in the world when he was elected - he was an organizational genius. Both parties wanted to nominate him at various times. But his policies didn't translate as well as they seemed like they would.
What happened with Borders books (the late, lamented chain store that actually carried our book) is an example of why we here at HQ don't think being a good business man means you'd be a good president. Borders tried to make next quarter look better by gradually lowering selection, focusing more on big-ticket items, and spending less on in-store events and entertainment at most locations. These moves cut back on costs and put the focus onto products with better margins, but after a few years of these cuts, they didn't have much of a company left. We can make our budget look better as a country by cutting back on spending on education, infrastructure, fire prevention, police, etc - but after a few years of it, how's the country going to look? You can't just lay people off to streamline the country. You can stop spending money on educating, feeding, or insuring them, but you'll still have to deal with them. They'll still be your citizens. It's not like firing them, where they're out of sight and out of mind once they're out the door.
Then again, in the interest of being fair and balanced, maybe now is the time for a business man to take the reins and turn the ship around. It'd be one hard message to sell, what with all the anti-corporate sentiment going around and all, but maybe Mitt can find a way to turn the above photo into a net positive.
Ron Paul and the Beatnik Party of 1960
A friend of mine once observed that when you take the "extreme right" and the "extreme left," the versions that the mainstream wings of the party generally try to ignore, they're not much different from each other. Ron Paul's people wouldn't have much to do with the Beatnik Party of 1960, but, really, Paul reminds me of them quite a bit.
In 1960, a group of beatniks gathered in New York to build a platform and nominate a candidate as the Beatnik Party's nominee for president.
One attendee was Joffre Stuart, a 34-year-old poet from Chicago who had been featured in "Howl," Allen Ginsberg's epid beatnik poem. Ginsberg described him as a man
In 1960, a group of beatniks gathered in New York to build a platform and nominate a candidate as the Beatnik Party's nominee for president.
One attendee was Joffre Stuart, a 34-year-old poet from Chicago who had been featured in "Howl," Allen Ginsberg's epid beatnik poem. Ginsberg described him as a man
who disappeared into the volcanoes of Mexico leaving
behind nothing but the shadow of dungarees
and the lava and ash of poetry scattered in fire
place Chicago,
who reappeared on the West Coast investigating the
F.B.I. in beards and shorts with big pacifist
eyes sexy in their dark skin passing out incom-
prehensible leaflets,
behind nothing but the shadow of dungarees
and the lava and ash of poetry scattered in fire
place Chicago,
who reappeared on the West Coast investigating the
F.B.I. in beards and shorts with big pacifist
eyes sexy in their dark skin passing out incom-
prehensible leaflets,
Leaflets were always Joffre's thing. He still passes them out today - at the 2007 Bughouse Square debates, which serve as a reunion for old Chicago bohemia, he was passing out leaflets promoting the idea that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy by "Jewish chauvanists."
Back in 1960, the party convention fell into two factions - responsible and irresponsible - Stuart became the leading voice of the irresponsible beatniks. They opposed actually nominating someone at all. "Like, only squares really nominate someone," said Stuart. Eventually, they agreed to allow for someone to be nominated, on the condition that the candidate not be bound to the platform. After all, as Stuart noted, "only finks play to win."
The beatniks then set about coming up with a platform. A few things were eventually agreed on: they were for peace with all nations (because "all beatniks are cowards"), and opposed to atomic energy, sex laws, work (the cry of "abolish work" was heard loud), and, of course, squares.
No official slogan was picked, though several were bandied about, such as "We have nothing to lose, we're already beat!" and "Trust us with the peace - we're too cowardly to fight."
Go Ahead and Pray, Kiddos!
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father." - Jesus.
That's from Matthew, Chapter 6, in your trusty Bible. It's not from Paul's commentary, and obscure verse from a chapter that outlaws the eating of shrimp, it's straight from the mouth of Jesus himself. I was about 13 when I first noticed that verse. If Jesus told people that it was better to pray in private, why the whole push for prayer in school?
Of course, by then I knew that the issue was already rife with misinformation. Any kid can pray any time they feel like it, provided they aren't disrupting the class (i.e., during lessons on evolution, you can't sit there shouting "Dear God, please kill this evil teacher and send her to hell where demons will torture her in the lake of fire for all time" so loudly that no one can hear what she's saying). The rule is just that the school can't organize or sponsor the prayer. It seemed to me that the "prayer in school" fight was just people fighting to get the government to recognize that THEIR religion was the RIGHT one.
Now and then, you DO hear stories about kids being told not to pray, or that it isn't allowed. This is because certain groups have been VERY successful in spreading the myth that school is not allowed. Apparently, even the governor of Texas is misinformed by it.
Well, perhaps he is, anyway. When someone goes on TV and says that prayer is not allowed in school, there are two possible reasons:
1. The person is misinformed. For most people, this is understandable, since there's so much misinformation out there (though for a governor of Texas to be so badly misinformed about something like this, which comes up a lot, is inexcusable).
2. The person is trying to play to people's base fears and prejudices in order to rile them up.
When a school lunch aide tells a kid not to bow his head before eating his chicken nuggets (despite the fact that praying to SOMEONE before eating those things is probably wise), it's probably the former.
But the people who are telling that lunch aide that prayer is not allowed - politicians, TV preachers, radio talk show hosts, and other noisemakers - should really know better. And I tend to assume that they DO know better.
History rarely smiles on politicians who get elected by playing up to people's fears and prejudices (and as a historian, you'd think Newt Gingrich would know this).
That's from Matthew, Chapter 6, in your trusty Bible. It's not from Paul's commentary, and obscure verse from a chapter that outlaws the eating of shrimp, it's straight from the mouth of Jesus himself. I was about 13 when I first noticed that verse. If Jesus told people that it was better to pray in private, why the whole push for prayer in school?
Of course, by then I knew that the issue was already rife with misinformation. Any kid can pray any time they feel like it, provided they aren't disrupting the class (i.e., during lessons on evolution, you can't sit there shouting "Dear God, please kill this evil teacher and send her to hell where demons will torture her in the lake of fire for all time" so loudly that no one can hear what she's saying). The rule is just that the school can't organize or sponsor the prayer. It seemed to me that the "prayer in school" fight was just people fighting to get the government to recognize that THEIR religion was the RIGHT one.
Now and then, you DO hear stories about kids being told not to pray, or that it isn't allowed. This is because certain groups have been VERY successful in spreading the myth that school is not allowed. Apparently, even the governor of Texas is misinformed by it.
Well, perhaps he is, anyway. When someone goes on TV and says that prayer is not allowed in school, there are two possible reasons:
1. The person is misinformed. For most people, this is understandable, since there's so much misinformation out there (though for a governor of Texas to be so badly misinformed about something like this, which comes up a lot, is inexcusable).
2. The person is trying to play to people's base fears and prejudices in order to rile them up.
When a school lunch aide tells a kid not to bow his head before eating his chicken nuggets (despite the fact that praying to SOMEONE before eating those things is probably wise), it's probably the former.
But the people who are telling that lunch aide that prayer is not allowed - politicians, TV preachers, radio talk show hosts, and other noisemakers - should really know better. And I tend to assume that they DO know better.
History rarely smiles on politicians who get elected by playing up to people's fears and prejudices (and as a historian, you'd think Newt Gingrich would know this).
John Newberry: Morally Upright Weenie
In his seminal review of our first book, Richie Partington wrote that "awards committees are not likely to take seriously a history book like THE SMART ALECK'S GUIDE." And right he was! We got short-listed for several, but few awards committee-types would risk their rep by sticking their necks out for a book with a title like that.
But you know what? Recently, our pal James Kennedy asked us to find out some stuff about John Newberry to use in his "90 Second Newberry" presentation at the New York Public Library, and what we found out shocked us. Do we even WANT an award named for such a guy?
Well, we ain't gettin' one anyway, so we might as well not want it, huh? Here's our video. I wear a bow tie in it. Bow ties are cool.
But you know what? Recently, our pal James Kennedy asked us to find out some stuff about John Newberry to use in his "90 Second Newberry" presentation at the New York Public Library, and what we found out shocked us. Do we even WANT an award named for such a guy?
Well, we ain't gettin' one anyway, so we might as well not want it, huh? Here's our video. I wear a bow tie in it. Bow ties are cool.
Anonymous
This afternoon I went to see anonymous with David Kathman (of
shakespeareauthorship.com) and Greg Reynolds, both of whom I know from
my time on Shakespeare newsgroups, where authorship arguments tend to
overshadow any real discussion about Shakespeare. The vibe on many of
them is more like a professional wrestling match than an academic
debate. In high school I went through a period of arguing that Edward
De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the real author of Shakespeare. It
didn't last long and I'm sort of ashamed of it now, but in the process
I learned a lot about Shakespeare's life, times and works, as well as
a lot of valuable lessons about info literary that have served me
well. Kathman argued me down a lot in those days, if I remember right,
but he also did so gracefully, and, anyway, all of us on that group
knew that when we argued with David, we were in over our heads to
begin with. It was fun now, a decade later, to sit laughing at a movie
about that theory with him.
shakespeareauthorship.com) and Greg Reynolds, both of whom I know from
my time on Shakespeare newsgroups, where authorship arguments tend to
overshadow any real discussion about Shakespeare. The vibe on many of
them is more like a professional wrestling match than an academic
debate. In high school I went through a period of arguing that Edward
De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the real author of Shakespeare. It
didn't last long and I'm sort of ashamed of it now, but in the process
I learned a lot about Shakespeare's life, times and works, as well as
a lot of valuable lessons about info literary that have served me
well. Kathman argued me down a lot in those days, if I remember right,
but he also did so gracefully, and, anyway, all of us on that group
knew that when we argued with David, we were in over our heads to
begin with. It was fun now, a decade later, to sit laughing at a movie
about that theory with him.
Anonymous is a movie based loosely around the "Oxfordian" theory. The
sets are stunning, the cinematography is masterful, the costumes are
fantastic. But the three of us spent half the movie laughing. One
line, "I can't very well put MY name on it. I'M the 17 Earl of
Oxford!" struck us as particularly rich, as did the scene where de
Vere's wife goes into hysterics because her husband is WRITING again.
sets are stunning, the cinematography is masterful, the costumes are
fantastic. But the three of us spent half the movie laughing. One
line, "I can't very well put MY name on it. I'M the 17 Earl of
Oxford!" struck us as particularly rich, as did the scene where de
Vere's wife goes into hysterics because her husband is WRITING again.
The theory put forth here is that de Vere was the illegitimate son -
and, later, lover - of Queen Elizabeth, and could have been king if
only he had been able to stay away from writing poetry. This is a
version of the Oxfordian theory that is too outlandish even for most
Oxfordian. They didn't go the route of having everyone in town know
who the REAL author was, and never dreaming that Will Shakespeare of
Stratford was anything but a grain merchant who happened to have the
same name as the Earl's pen name, but THAT version frankly would have
been more plausible than what they came up with. I don't think the
story here is going to persuade many new converts to Oxfordianism.
and, later, lover - of Queen Elizabeth, and could have been king if
only he had been able to stay away from writing poetry. This is a
version of the Oxfordian theory that is too outlandish even for most
Oxfordian. They didn't go the route of having everyone in town know
who the REAL author was, and never dreaming that Will Shakespeare of
Stratford was anything but a grain merchant who happened to have the
same name as the Earl's pen name, but THAT version frankly would have
been more plausible than what they came up with. I don't think the
story here is going to persuade many new converts to Oxfordianism.
Shakespeare is here portrayed as a guy who reminded me of, well….
imagine if Richard Simmons grew a mustache and was constantly
wandering around in a daze, as though he'd just been clubbed in the
head with a two by four. It's said that he's illiterate - he can read,
but "never learned to form his letters," and panics when he's
challenged to write the letter I. I'm not sure that this even makes
sense. If one can read, one ought to be able to copy down the abcs,
the same way I can draw a respectable triangle without knowing much
about trigonometry.
imagine if Richard Simmons grew a mustache and was constantly
wandering around in a daze, as though he'd just been clubbed in the
head with a two by four. It's said that he's illiterate - he can read,
but "never learned to form his letters," and panics when he's
challenged to write the letter I. I'm not sure that this even makes
sense. If one can read, one ought to be able to copy down the abcs,
the same way I can draw a respectable triangle without knowing much
about trigonometry.
Meanwhile, Christopher Marlowe has a small role as a villain who calls
to mind the snake from Disney's version of The Jungle Book. In one
scene where he reveals that he knows Shakespeare isn't the author, it
can only have been by sheer force of will that the actor didn't start
twirling his mustache.
to mind the snake from Disney's version of The Jungle Book. In one
scene where he reveals that he knows Shakespeare isn't the author, it
can only have been by sheer force of will that the actor didn't start
twirling his mustache.
Ben Johnson, meanwhile, plays the one guy who knows de Vere's secret
and who single-handedly thwarts the Essex rebellion. As a character
here he sometimes made me think of Captain Jack Sparrow. Never once
did he make me think of Ben Johnson (though one of the other
playwrights - I think it was supposed to be Thomas Nashe - did). I
never did figure out what made the character here tick, and he was
such a big character that I felt like I needed to know more about him.
and who single-handedly thwarts the Essex rebellion. As a character
here he sometimes made me think of Captain Jack Sparrow. Never once
did he make me think of Ben Johnson (though one of the other
playwrights - I think it was supposed to be Thomas Nashe - did). I
never did figure out what made the character here tick, and he was
such a big character that I felt like I needed to know more about him.
The anachronisms pile up one on top of the other. We have Venus and
Adonis being published in 1601 (8 years too late), Marlowe being
stabbed by Shakespeare in 1598 (not by himself in a tavern five years
earlier), everyone being shocked that Romeo and Juliet is entirely in
iambic pentameter (they wouldn't have been even if it was). The Essex
Rebellion went down entirely differently than it does in the history
books. Etc. Changing these things around to condense the narrative,
make the story easier to follow, or to give it more emotional heft is
perfectly fine for a movie, I think - but in this case the changes
didn't really do any of those things.
Adonis being published in 1601 (8 years too late), Marlowe being
stabbed by Shakespeare in 1598 (not by himself in a tavern five years
earlier), everyone being shocked that Romeo and Juliet is entirely in
iambic pentameter (they wouldn't have been even if it was). The Essex
Rebellion went down entirely differently than it does in the history
books. Etc. Changing these things around to condense the narrative,
make the story easier to follow, or to give it more emotional heft is
perfectly fine for a movie, I think - but in this case the changes
didn't really do any of those things.
I wanted to think, early on, that if you gave everyone a different
name and didn't pretend that this had anything to do with history, it
would have been a great movie. But I wound up spending too much time
wondering what was going on, and why I should care much. There seemed
to be two movies inside of the screenplay - one about political
intrigue and the relationship between Elizabeth and Edward, and quite
another about the theatre. It wound up feeling like a bit of both but
not enough of either. I spent a lot of time not quite sure what was
going on, and a general knowledge of the era didn't help, because they
deviated from the facts so much that I only got more confused.
name and didn't pretend that this had anything to do with history, it
would have been a great movie. But I wound up spending too much time
wondering what was going on, and why I should care much. There seemed
to be two movies inside of the screenplay - one about political
intrigue and the relationship between Elizabeth and Edward, and quite
another about the theatre. It wound up feeling like a bit of both but
not enough of either. I spent a lot of time not quite sure what was
going on, and a general knowledge of the era didn't help, because they
deviated from the facts so much that I only got more confused.
People are going to compare this to Shakespeare in Love, which was
also entirely fiction. But for all that was wrong with SIL, it was
still a wonderful, entertaining, and moving film. Though the notion of
Shakespeare making up the plot of Romeo and Juliet himself was absurd
(like most of his plays, the plot was not original), but at least the
changes there made clear sense to the movie as a whole - and it
contained plenty of details that made it obvious that the writers knew
the Elizabethan theatre world pretty well. We don't really know what
kind of guy Shakespeare was in 1593, in his late 20s, at the time of
Marlowe's death, when he was making the transition from being a
promising playwright to being the Soul of the Age, but Shakespeare in
Love comes off as a pretty good guess. And when they changed things,
you knew it was all in good fun - not to make a point or promote a
theory.
also entirely fiction. But for all that was wrong with SIL, it was
still a wonderful, entertaining, and moving film. Though the notion of
Shakespeare making up the plot of Romeo and Juliet himself was absurd
(like most of his plays, the plot was not original), but at least the
changes there made clear sense to the movie as a whole - and it
contained plenty of details that made it obvious that the writers knew
the Elizabethan theatre world pretty well. We don't really know what
kind of guy Shakespeare was in 1593, in his late 20s, at the time of
Marlowe's death, when he was making the transition from being a
promising playwright to being the Soul of the Age, but Shakespeare in
Love comes off as a pretty good guess. And when they changed things,
you knew it was all in good fun - not to make a point or promote a
theory.
Still, Anonymous had a lot going for it. The cinematography, as
mentioned before, was fantastic, and many of the theatrical scenes
were great - The St. Crispin's day speech was just as rousing as it
was supposed to be. I also liked Oxford's chambers, with books
everywhere, bizarre scientific specimens in glasses, a zebra head on
the wall, maps all over…it's exactly as though someone had tried to
dream up the office of a 17th century genius and done a hell of a job
with it. And even though I got confused a lot, I definitely never got
bored.
mentioned before, was fantastic, and many of the theatrical scenes
were great - The St. Crispin's day speech was just as rousing as it
was supposed to be. I also liked Oxford's chambers, with books
everywhere, bizarre scientific specimens in glasses, a zebra head on
the wall, maps all over…it's exactly as though someone had tried to
dream up the office of a 17th century genius and done a hell of a job
with it. And even though I got confused a lot, I definitely never got
bored.
I was quite pleased for an entirely selfish reason - my new book,
EXTRAORDINARY*, is out next Tuesday, and prominently features two bits
of Shakespeare - a bit from Twelfth Night, and the St. Crispin's day
speech (which characters shout as they roll a Wells Fargo wagon full
of unicorn poop through the streets of Des Moines), and both of them
just happen to turn up in the movie (along with the opening speech
from Richard III, which is also in both).
EXTRAORDINARY*, is out next Tuesday, and prominently features two bits
of Shakespeare - a bit from Twelfth Night, and the St. Crispin's day
speech (which characters shout as they roll a Wells Fargo wagon full
of unicorn poop through the streets of Des Moines), and both of them
just happen to turn up in the movie (along with the opening speech
from Richard III, which is also in both).
On The Evolution of the Words "Pee" and "Poop."
(here's a cross-post from Playground Jungle)
Folklorists generally ignored fart rhymes and other "naughty" ones up until about the 1970s. Even Iona Opie, a nursery rhyme expert who was no prude, was referring to "unprintable rhymes" in the 1950s. But it can generally be assumed that any time you find a counting-out rhyme about a stink, that rhyme was also used when someone farted.
Here's one from The Counting Out Rhymes of Children, an 1888 tome by a guy named Henry Carrington Bolton (with a name like that, he just about HAD to be a 19th century scholar):
Ink, pink, a penny a wink
Oh, how do you stink!
-- (Ontario, Canada)
Another one goes back even further - Mary Cooper recorded it in Tom Thumb's Pretty Song Book, the very oldest surviving collection of nursery rhymes, which she published in 1744
Little robin redbreast sat on a pole
niddle noddle went his head, poop went his hole
Another rhyme in the same 1744 collection:
Piss a bed, piss a bed,
barley butt
your bum is so heavy
you can't get up.
This later turned up in Joyce's Ulysses.. "Piss" meant the same thing then as it does now - in fact, it's one of the older words in the English language. People starting saying the first initial, "pee" (I suppose we should spell it "p---" ) when "piss" started to be considered impolite. Even the cleaned-up versions of the rhymes are pretty well out of circulation now, as far as we can tell, but the 1700s were not a terribly prudish time.
Folklorists generally ignored fart rhymes and other "naughty" ones up until about the 1970s. Even Iona Opie, a nursery rhyme expert who was no prude, was referring to "unprintable rhymes" in the 1950s. But it can generally be assumed that any time you find a counting-out rhyme about a stink, that rhyme was also used when someone farted.
Here's one from The Counting Out Rhymes of Children, an 1888 tome by a guy named Henry Carrington Bolton (with a name like that, he just about HAD to be a 19th century scholar):
Ink, pink, a penny a wink
Oh, how do you stink!
-- (Ontario, Canada)
Another one goes back even further - Mary Cooper recorded it in Tom Thumb's Pretty Song Book, the very oldest surviving collection of nursery rhymes, which she published in 1744
Little robin redbreast sat on a pole
niddle noddle went his head, poop went his hole
| Eventually people cleaned up the last line - it was later published as "wiggle waggle went his tail," which, of course, doesn't even rhyme. Lame. Incidentally, the "poop" here means "fart." When the word "poop" first appeared in America, it meant "butt." In 1640, a guy named Ned Ward wrote a sentence that went "while he manages his whiffle staff with one hand, he scratches his poop with the other." But a 1714 dictionary actually defined the word "poop" as "to break wind backwards." It didn't start being used in its modern sense until around 1900 (according to the book on the left). So, while "poop" has become a broadly accepted, even polite term for both excretion and that which one excretes, you're really showing that you're a fan of traditional values when you use a much older term, like %&%^. |
Another rhyme in the same 1744 collection:
Piss a bed, piss a bed,
barley butt
your bum is so heavy
you can't get up.
This later turned up in Joyce's Ulysses.. "Piss" meant the same thing then as it does now - in fact, it's one of the older words in the English language. People starting saying the first initial, "pee" (I suppose we should spell it "p---" ) when "piss" started to be considered impolite. Even the cleaned-up versions of the rhymes are pretty well out of circulation now, as far as we can tell, but the 1700s were not a terribly prudish time.
Grave Robbing: Interview with a professional "subject gatherer."
Nearly half a century after the Anatomy Act was passed in the U.K., granting medical schools the bodies of poor people who had no friends to pay for a burial, colleges in the states were still desperate for bodies - desperate enough that you could bring a body to most medical schools and trade it in for cash or valuable prizes, no questions asked. Here’s an interview with Charles Keeton, “Professor of Subject-Gathering” conducted by the Cincinnati Enquirer in 1878. Keeton was proud of his profession, since his labors were performed in the interest of science:
Enquirer; How long have you been in the business?
KEETON: About eleven years, sir. I began with Mr. Cunningham, “Old Cunny,” they called hi, eleven years ago, and have followed the business every winter since that.
Does it pay pretty well?
Not now. It used to pay, for we got a good price for subjects, but there isn’t much money in it now.
Why don’t they pay so much now?
Well, sir, the fact is I don’t want to say nothing against anybody, but it ‘pears to me that somebody ain’t exactly doing the fair thing by the profession of subject-gathering. I don’t ‘cuse none of the doctors themselves of going out to get stiffs, but there is something wrong somewhere. The old demonstrators of anatomy at the colleges wouldn’t have stooped to such a thing either, but I think things are changed now. I went to the demonstrator of one college— I ain’t going to call any names— in March, and asked him how many subjects they were going to want for the spring session, and he told me he thought they wouldn’t want any more, that they had enough on hand. Well, you see, I know better than that, and my private ‘pinion is that that ‘ere demonstrator gets his subjects in some queer sort of way. I don’t say that he goes out for ‘em himself, but if he doesn’t he must have some no ‘count men that would as soon rob the grave of a party well connected, with lots of friends, as any other way. Now, now body snatcher as has any respect for hisself or his calling ‘ll do a thing of that sort. There’s plenty of material lying ‘round and rotting, just rotting, sir, and no friends to claim it.
How long have you been at the business?
It’s about eleven years since I first begun it. I begun with Old Cunny. First he paid me $3 a head; that was while I was learning. Then he gave me $8 apiece, and finally I decided to quit him and go by myself, and so he said he’d give me half, and then we worked together and shared till he died.
Do you make it a regular business, then?
I get my living by it in the winter time.
What do you get for subjects?
We used to get about $25 apiece for them, but lately the price somehow has got down to $15. The professors buy some subjects for themselves, and they most always get them for about $15.
How do you usually get the bodies?
Well, we generally go out two together and go to a burying ground. We go to the poor lots, the Potter’s Field, and when we can find any fresh graves we get the bodies.
You don’t get them from the parts where the better class of people are buried?
No. Lots of times Cunny and I have been out together and we’d find a fresh grave on a large lot, and Cunny would always say “Come ‘long, honey, we won’t take that.’ When we’d come through to the part where the graves were close together, and we knew it was the poor lot where the people without any friends were buried, then we’d dig down to the coffin, break it open, and put a rope around the neck and pull the body out. I don’t do it that way now, though, for it is just as easy to throw all the dirt out. Then, after throwing it out, I generally get down and open the coffin, and take the body by the waist and lift it out to my partner. He takes it, and gently runs a knife down the back and rips the clothes off, and lets ‘em drop down. Then we slip the head into a sack, press the knees up against the chest, and slip the body in it and tie the sack. That’s all there is to it.
How do you enjoy the work?
Well, it wasn’t very pleasant at first, of course, but any one gets used to it. It is for the good of science, and I think it is just as right and honorable as for the man what does the dissection. I want to say one thing, though, and that is that the colored people have ‘cused me of robbing the graves and their graveyards. I never have done so. I have took up a good many bodies of colored people wot was buried in the poor lot, but never any other.
How many do you suppose you have furnished in your experience as a body snatcher?
Maybe 500. I got about forty last winter, but it wasn’t a very good winter for it, though.
For WAY more information:
Drafting the Confederate Constitution (Chapter 4 supplemental article)
In 1861, big shots from the newly formed Confederate States of America met in Montgomery to draft a provisional constitution for their new country. Only sight changes were made between their provisional draft and the final one.
Not many changes were made to the original United States constitution - Jefferson Davis gave a speech saying that the new constitution was what the founding fathers intended, and differed only in that it made their original intention more explicit (in a very good example of the still-common fallacy of thinking that the original founding fathers all agreed on anything).
Of particular note is the addition of a line to the pre-amble which invokes the aid of "Almighty God," a concept left out of the United States constitution altogether. Confederate archives that were captured by the Union in 1865 give an interesting behind-the-scenes look at how this was added.
After some debate about whether to call the new country The Confederate States of America or The Republic of Washington, a motion was made to ad "invoking the aid of Almighty God" into the pre-amble. One man objected and wanted the line removed. Another wanted it changed to "invoking the aid of almighty God, who is the God of the Bible and the rightful source of all power and government." But, since this might imply that Christianity was the official religion, Judah P. Benjamin, the most notable Jewish confederate big shot, objected. The short "almighty God" line was kept; the longer one and more explicit one was left out.
There was also an attempt by either Thomas Reade Rootes Cobb, the be-mulleted gent above, or his cousin Thomas Howell Cobb, the guy below who looks like a larger, fresh-from-the-fight clone of Stephan Douglas (sources aren't clear about which Cobb it was), to add a line stating "No man shall be compelled to do civil duty on Sunday."
It was quickly rejected, so whichever Cobb it was tried to insert a law about at least banning the delivery of mail on Sunday. A guy from Louisiana said that the people of Louisiana believed that people could worship God any day they wanted, so Louisiana should be exempt from that law. Texas wanted out too, and in the end the whole line was removed.
Interestingly, the provisional authors voted down a rule saying that all new states joining the Confederacy had to allow slavery. However, since the final draft very explicitly protected the right to own slaves, such a rule would have been unnecessary. A non-slave state could have joined, but it would have immediately become a slave state.
For all the talk you hear about "State's Rights" being a major cause, there's precious little of it in the CSA constitution, other than some lip service to the states acting in their "sovereign character." That's the impression one gets from reading accounts of these conventions and meetings - they would talk about state's rights now and then, but there was only one that really loomed large in their mind. Once people got started talking about slavery and their frustration with northern attempts to end it, it was hard to get them to shut up.
Not many changes were made to the original United States constitution - Jefferson Davis gave a speech saying that the new constitution was what the founding fathers intended, and differed only in that it made their original intention more explicit (in a very good example of the still-common fallacy of thinking that the original founding fathers all agreed on anything).
Of particular note is the addition of a line to the pre-amble which invokes the aid of "Almighty God," a concept left out of the United States constitution altogether. Confederate archives that were captured by the Union in 1865 give an interesting behind-the-scenes look at how this was added.
After some debate about whether to call the new country The Confederate States of America or The Republic of Washington, a motion was made to ad "invoking the aid of Almighty God" into the pre-amble. One man objected and wanted the line removed. Another wanted it changed to "invoking the aid of almighty God, who is the God of the Bible and the rightful source of all power and government." But, since this might imply that Christianity was the official religion, Judah P. Benjamin, the most notable Jewish confederate big shot, objected. The short "almighty God" line was kept; the longer one and more explicit one was left out.
There was also an attempt by either Thomas Reade Rootes Cobb, the be-mulleted gent above, or his cousin Thomas Howell Cobb, the guy below who looks like a larger, fresh-from-the-fight clone of Stephan Douglas (sources aren't clear about which Cobb it was), to add a line stating "No man shall be compelled to do civil duty on Sunday."
It was quickly rejected, so whichever Cobb it was tried to insert a law about at least banning the delivery of mail on Sunday. A guy from Louisiana said that the people of Louisiana believed that people could worship God any day they wanted, so Louisiana should be exempt from that law. Texas wanted out too, and in the end the whole line was removed.
Interestingly, the provisional authors voted down a rule saying that all new states joining the Confederacy had to allow slavery. However, since the final draft very explicitly protected the right to own slaves, such a rule would have been unnecessary. A non-slave state could have joined, but it would have immediately become a slave state.
For all the talk you hear about "State's Rights" being a major cause, there's precious little of it in the CSA constitution, other than some lip service to the states acting in their "sovereign character." That's the impression one gets from reading accounts of these conventions and meetings - they would talk about state's rights now and then, but there was only one that really loomed large in their mind. Once people got started talking about slavery and their frustration with northern attempts to end it, it was hard to get them to shut up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
