Ashley Bossier wrote this post.
Today in class we were talking about how no one thought to check Hamlet's dad's body for the snake bite. Then the topic of autopsies came out. So I googled autopsy and found some stuff out. The first autopsy was around 300 BC by Alexandrian physicians, they just kind of cut the body open to look at it. But it were the Greeks, in the late 2nd century AD, who actually looked at what caused the death of people. They looked at the symptoms and the signs of what killed the people. This was the foundation for all autopsies after.
Literary Works Online
Art Watch - NOLA.com
clustrmap
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2015
(343)
-
▼
November
(32)
- Candide's Travels...A Modest Candide ?
- A Comparison
- Reign
- Anybody else starting to feel bad for Candide?
- Incest in humanities: part 12,683
- More information on David, for all you Michelangel...
- Ham Sandwich Hamlet
- Hamlet's Justification
- Repentance
- Hamlet and Gertrude
- A master key vs a crappy lock
- Odd Couple
- If I Were a King
- Sexual Tension
- Luther
- Does Hamlet feel guilt for wanting to kill Claudius?
- To kill or not to kill...i guess
- Film adaptation of Hamlet
- Hambeth (Maclet)
- Hamlet's Delay
- Shakespearean Conspiracy
- WARNING: THIS POST HAS NO SUBSTANCE
- The Lion King pt. 2
- Fortuna fortibus favet
- Polonius
- Has anyone seen Ella Enchanted?
- Magical Realism in Hamlet
- Autopsy
- Othello
- Oedipus vs. Hamlet
- It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Hotel California
-
▼
November
(32)
4 comments:
This is actually really interesting. If they started autopsies around the second century, why wouldn't it be happening in the 1500s when Shakespeare wrote the play? The reason for this may be because the play is actually set in the 7th century, and although they may hve had standard autopsies by Shakespeare's time, he did not know if they existed back in the 7th century or not. Also, I think because Shakespeare wrote his plays for entertainment, people probably wouldn't be analyzing them like we are now. So, the contemporary audiences probably would not have even questioned his lack of autopsy.
I do also think that since this was the king, only a select few would have been able to see the body. Things would have been kept within the family with such royalty, and if the family was given a story that made sense about the king's death, they would have probably been too overwhelmed and distracted by the grief to question the exact cause of his death. If no one suspected murder, than the cause of his death would have never been thoroughly investigated, because there would not be a need. Knowing exactly how he died would not be able to solve anything.
I still find it sketchy that no one else would have seen the body. Because if that were something so easily taken as truth then people could murder and do anything and just tell the public that something else had happened. While I'm sure that to some extent they could get away with things, I don't think they could murder the king without someone else seeing the body. I suppose they could've been paid off or part of the plan themselves, but I find it strange since it seems that Hamlet was a beloved king, and no one sought to make sure he actually died just from a snake bite when he didn't even have a bite mark on him. But willing suspension of disbelief right?
I think that the covering up of the murder was very sketchy. I feel as though Shakespeare actually left a hole in the plot on this one. If what Ashley's saying is true , hen there really is a hole in the plot. I feel as though someone as highly renowned as a king (think cutting the head off a body with the great chain of being) would have had extensive checks on his bodies after his death. I'm just grazing the surface here, but I'm at homecoming right now, so I'm just trying to get this done.
Post a Comment