Witches- Part Four- William Harvey
Even with popular option being behind the Witch Hunter, Matthew Hopkins, Not everyone believed in witches. One such man was the King's doctor, William Harvey. Harvey was a man who thought differently to others at the time. He had been born into a wealthy family and studied medicine in Padua, Italy. It was the best college in Europe at the time and Galileo was the professor of mathematics.
William Harvey
Blood!
At the time people believed in thousand year old writings of a Roman doctor name Galen. He believed that the liver made blood and pushed it out to the organs where it was used up. The liver was the center of veins and arteries and the lungs pushed everything around the body. The heart was believed to be the life-force of the body and was like a furnace, warming the body. That's why age-old phrases exist such as follow your heart, heart of stone, half-hearted and heart on your sleeves. It was believed that blood went to the heart but not out from it. Therefore, the body was constantly being made and used up. Today we know this is incorrect but it was believed for a thousand years because nobody decided to check it. For 1,000 years doctors worked off the respected works from Ancient Rome and believed disease was caused by an imbalance of black or yellow bodily liquids or blood. One popular treatment was applying blood-letting in which it was believed that an illness was caused because of an excess of blood and therefore the doctor would cut the patient and let some blood drain out. Another popular way to solve this issue as to apply leeches to the patient and let the worms suck the blood out instead.
Cadavers
William Harvey was different. Harvey needed evidence for things and didn't trust old books completely. He sought to verify what he was reading. However, the only way to verify what was happening inside the human body was to see inside the human body. In the 1700’s human dissection was a big taboo—people feared that it would leave their bodies mangled on Judgment Day, when God would raise the dead. Britons also viewed dissection as shameful—a naked body lying there, poked and prodded. As a result, government officials banned most dissections. The only exception was for the bodies of people who were executed. This led to some unintended consequences, most notably a shortage of bodies for anatomists to dissect. To meet the heightened demand, a new profession emerged: grave-robbers. These so-called resurrectionists dug up the bodies of poor people to sell to anatomists, which led to riots in the streets. In Edinburgh, Scotland, two grave-robbers couldn't wait for someone to die and instead murdered a few people in order to get an earlier payday. However, William Harvey was the King’s doctor and had easy access to the executed criminals, some of which were executed as witches.
Discovery
After dissecting and studying human bodies, William Harvey noticed that it didn’t match what he was taught to expect.
- Harvey noticed that blood still squirted out of arteries cut in dead men. The blood was still pressurized inside even after the person had stopped breathing for hours. If blood was consumed by the body, the executed criminal should have less blood than when they died.
- Harvey tested the theory that oxygen pushed blood out from the liver to the organs. He did this by holdings his breath underwater. Why, he wondered, did his pulse not slow down?
- Doctors also taught that veins and arteries have different blood inside. Harvey compared blood from both and observed that both bloods looked the same, acted the same and congealed at the same rate.
- Harvey then calculated the amount of blood in the human body and calculated the rate that the liver creates blood. He realized that the liver could not make blood fast enough.
- He was now suspicious that blood was not being used completely and therefore, some of the blood was being recycled. He hypothesized that blood must circulate around the body. He decided to test this by blocking off a vein next to the heart, the heart becomes pale. This suggested that the blood was flowing into the heart, just as Galen taught. However, when Harvey blocked an artery next to the heart, the heart became purple and swollen. This suggests that the blood was flowing out of the heart. Harvey then also demonstrated this on the human arm, cutting off the flow from the veins and then the arteries.
Therefore, the veins and arteries worked in a circular motion throughout the body and the heart was the pump.
How did Harvey prove his theory?
However, most doctors responded with, “What do you mean the blood circulates? We’ve know the blood disperse out from the center for a thousand years! The works of Galen clearly say that blood goes out to the organs and are used up.”
How did others argue against him?
Conclusion
It took a long time for doctors at the time to accept the findings of William Harvey, how could a 1,000 year old fact be false? However, over time, with hands-on observation, this became the opinion of all doctors. Over the following 300 years medical professionals discovered blood donations, blood transfusions, blood types and created blood banks saving millions of lives.
Blood Transfusions
Blood Transfusions through the years
The story teaches us the importance of questioning existing dogmas when the evidence calls for it. Harvey, while respectful of and deferential to his predecessors, was not afraid to carve his own path. Harvey’s warnings about the power of authority and dogma are equally pertinent today as they were in his time.
William Harvey & Witches
It could've been that witch mania wasn't popular in Italy, where Harvey had spent time. It might have been his scientific background. Whatever it was, Harvey was skeptical about the exsistence of witches. As the King's doctor, he was asked to examine accused witches. When he went to Lancashire to examine four witches they were all acquitted. While travelling with the King to Newmarket, he had been sent to investigate a woman accused of being a witch. Initially, he told her that he was a wizard and had come to discuss the Craft with her, and asked whether she had a familiar. She put down a saucer of milk and called to a toad which came out and drank the milk. He then sent her out to fetch some ale, killed the toad and dissected it, concluding that it was a perfectly ordinary animal and not supernatural in any way. When the woman returned she was naturally very angry and upset, but Harvey eventually silenced her by stating that he was the King's Physician, sent to discover whether she was a witch, and if she were, to have her apprehended.
https://youtu.be/7NOU4McjtXs?si=ktyG4Iv3-Af8DFkZ
Imagine if someone was accused of being a witch today. In a court of law, Matthew Hopkins on the prosecution and William Harvey on the defense.
Matthew Hopkins opens the debate. “This witch has confessed to all charges! What else do we need?”
William Harvey: “I have heard about the techniques used on this poor woman to force her to confess. If I were under the same conditions I’m sure I would also confess to anything asked of me.”
Matthew Hopkins: “The devices are needed to break the evil spirit inside of her.”
William Harvey: “But if the devices and torture has the potential to force a false confession out of an innocent person, what use is the confession?”
Matthew Hopkins: “Are you telling me you don’t believe in witches? You disagree with our King and God’s word, the Holy Bible?”
William Harvey: “I have not denied the existence of witches. My only concern is with Mrs Smith.”
Matthew Hopkins: “Why would an innocent person confess when they know that death is the penalty?”
William Harvey: “To put a stop to the endless pain you’re subjecting them to!”
Matthew Hopkins: “Why do you care about this witch? Are you a witch too?”
William Harvey: “But Sir, how do you separate the innocent from the guilty?”
Matthew Hopkins: “God knows his own. It’s better to kill a hundred innocent people than let a single witch go free. Do you suggest we let those who have made a pact with the devil go free?”
William Harvey: “Then why not kill everyone and you’ll have achieved your goal?”
How do both of these men form conclusions?
Matthew Hopkins evidence – alterative explanations?
If people challenged Matthew Hopkins, he'd flip open a book and read the words of King James Or he'd read from the latest translation of the Bible. The King James Bible. Matthew Hopkins used these stories to prove what he was saying was true and he had the support of the King, the most respected person in the country and of God, the Supreme authority.
However, if we were to question Matthew Hopkins, what would you say? How do you know who is a witch and isn't?
An unusual mark on the body (Satan’s mark)
Vicinity to a suspicious death
Being disruptive, unfriendly or rude
Having close relationships with animals
Confession
Floating proved rejection of baptism
What are the problems with these conclusions?
If they found a mark = guilty, if they didn’t find a mark = it’s hidden
If they were near = guilty, if they weren’t nearby = magic or voodoo doll
If they were argumentative = Sower of dissent = guilty, if they were quiet, up to no good = guilty
Animals = demons disguised, no animals = nature fears the presence of the devil
Confession = guilty, no confession = hardened by the devil
"They confess. Why confess? Authorities had gathered thousands of confessions in just a few hundred years. If people were accusing witches and witches were confessing upon pain of death, there must be witches!"
Floating = guilty, drowning = innocent
"Why widespread? Witches had been discovered in England, Scotland, France, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Italy and more."
King James himself tells us about the activities of witches in his book. Why is it the witches confess to these same crimes?
Questions
Why do you think William Harvey didn't believe the same things as the majority of people around him?:
How did people decide people were witches?
How did Harvey discover facts about the human body?
Why might Matthew Hopkins not want to admit he was wrong?
Tide Turns Against Matthew Hopkins
The actions of witch-hunter Matthew Hopkins got the attention of parliament, who denied that they have ever given him permission to act on their behalf. The preacher who Hopkins executed for being a witch had friends within the church who no longer felt safe from his accusations. They spoke against him to their congregations. They criticized the treatment of women. Women who were someone’s sister, mother, grandmother wife and daughter. They criticized the methods Matthew Hopkins used to get the women to confess.
As the King's doctor, William Harvey was often asked to inspect accused witches. As a doctor, he knew that the birthmarks were common, benign and not at all a sign of a deal with the devil. Harvey initially attempted to devise a scientific way to differ between the innocent and the guilty. Harvey knew that Hopkins methods were flawed and many innocent people had been falsely executed out of fear.
Last person to be executed as a witch in England was in 1684. The last person executed as a witch in Scotland was in 1727.
Witch Persecution Spread
https://youtu.be/7x5KesH3dzM
Comments
Post a Comment