If there is one thing most people would not consider to be an object, it would be body parts. Naturally, individuals today will believe a body part to be living, or at least connected to a living being and therefore not an object. Personally, I believe that a body part should not be considered an object and is a heavy source for ethical debate. But what about transplant organs? Or even animal body parts? How does our use of these body parts ethically differ from how body parts may have been viewed during the 1800’s?

In Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel, Frankenstein, the main character, Victor Frankenstein, uses human body parts to construct his Creation. In multiple instances, Victor refers to body parts using an object-like connotation, like, “materials at present,” or, “my materials” (Shelley, 80). He also describes the body parts as, “lifeless clay” (Shelley 81). Lastly, Victor references the Creatures body parts when explaining the methods in which he obtained them, saying, “The dissecting room and the slaughter house furnished many of my materials” (Shelley 81). By referring to body parts in this manner, readers can infer that Victor views human body parts as objects. This piqued my interest due to the controversial topic of using human body parts, or any body parts to complete some sort of task. Therefore, I wanted to research the difference in ethics surrounding the use of body parts today, versus in the 1800s.

One of the first things that came to mind when thinking about the ethical use of body parts during the 1800s was grave robbing. Technically, the term for grave robbing during the 1800’s was body snatching. The full definition of body snatching is the, “act of secretly removing corpses from graves in order to sell them” (Rimer). This act was actually very common during the 1800’s, especially in the United States. Here, many medical schools required the use of cadavers for anatomical practices, but had limited methods of obtaining these bodies. In fact, the punishment for executed prisoners was dissection, leaving a negative stigma against donating your body to science and therefore, the supply for fresh cadavers dramatically decreased. (Meier) This lead to a surge of body snatchers, or in this case, “Resurrectionists,” who were recruited by medical institutions to dig up fresh cadavers and body parts necessary for experimentation. These Resurrectionists mainly worked during colder seasons so that these bodies, or, “stiffs” would remain preserved before being dug up (Rimer). Most of the bodies recovered in this way would be of a skinnier stature, so that the muscles on the bodies would be readily accessible and free from excess fat for medical students to dissect. Also, the preferred age of the body recovered would be around 16-20 years old (Rimer). Most records state that, “those submitted to the anatomists’ knife at a University were largely the bodies of recently deceased African Americans (both enslaved and free) who were grave-robbed for the school by hired professionals — known as Resurrectionists — in Baltimore, Alexandria, Norfolk, Richmond, and elsewhere.” (Meier). Therefore, race and wealth also played a very important role in grave robbing during the 1800’s. Sometimes, women would be hired to pretend to be a relative of the corpse to claim the body for the Resurrectionists, relieving them of any troubles they might face in this process. In fact, these grave robbers were paid about $80 per corpse which is equivalent to $2100 today. (Rimer).

Authorities saw this as a moral issue and did not take much action against grave robbers, only sentencing them to a few years behind bars if anything. Some individuals began using different methods to protect their deceased family members since they could not rely on the authorities. these methods included caging up the graves, buying sturdier coffins, or even setting up a “coffin torpedo” which was a bomb set to go off if anyone forcefully pried the coffin open. (Rimer).

Surprisingly, for some states, “it took until the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries to pass acts outlawing medical grave robbing.” (Meier). Therefore, I can infer that during the 1800’s, most individuals, especially those studying medicine, barely felt any remorse for their methods in obtaining bodies, and these bodies were definitely treated like objects, whether that be in the remorseless dissecting of them, or the bartering of them for large sums of money. Thankfully today there are other methods that allow students to study the human anatomy and plenty of repercussions against grave robbery. However, we still face some issues today involving the testing of products on animals or animal cruelty, but that is a whole other source for ethical debate.

Relating these grave robbers back to Victor Frankenstein, we can see that Victor also took upon methods of grave robbery to complete his Creature. I think that Mary Shelley wanted to convey a very important message relating not only to the type of character Victor is, but also to the politics surrounding the ethics of grave robbery during the 1800’s. I believe that Victor represents what the readers would most likely assume to be the average human being, and that the Creature is supposed to represent this horrendous monster. However by the end of the novel it is clear that the one character that contains the most human-natured characteristics is the Creature. This allows readers to see Victor in a more monstrous sense, representing how humans as we know them are more monstrous than any monster. Therefore, painting humans out to be individuals that cause more harm for personal gain than any good. Therefore Mary Shelley is criticizing those who do use human carcasses for material gain, while also criticizing humanity in general.

Citations

Meier, Allison C. “Grave Robbing, Black Cemeteries, and the American Medical School.” JSTOR Daily, 2018, https://daily.jstor.org/grave-robbing-black-cemeteries-and-the-american-medical-school/.

Rimer, Julie. “Body Snatching in the 1800’s.” Cemetery Index, June 2022, https://cemeteryindex.com/wordpress/featured-cemeteries/mt-washington-cemetery/julie-rimer-historical-ramblings/body-snatching-in-the-1800s/#:~:text=Body%20snatching%20is%20a%20term,for%20dissection%20and%20anatomy%20lessons.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, et al. Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus: Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, the Original 1818 Text. Broadview Press, 2012.