Chapter 4 Synopsis and Critique
Synopsis:Chapter Four, entitled “The Broken Heart of the Republic,” begins with Thomas Willis’ education. He became a student of Oxford in 1638. It was there that his life would begin to unravel both personally and communally.
King Charles was becoming more and more detested throughout England. While he was taking the people’s money, he had Laud persecute the Puritans and other rebels forming secret courts. The church services, requested on King Charles behalf, were the beginnings to a launch of war. When King Charles called Parliament, angry Puritans and landowners were enraged by the rules. Charles tried to negotiate with Parliament whom was not content with compromise. Enemies of the king imprisoned some of Charles advisors while Charles opponents slipped away quietly, humiliating his power and enraging Parliament. War had begun in the country. Formerly an educational atmosphere, Oxford became the place for the training of militia and the preparation of weapons and gear. At this point, Willis’ future as a clergyman was not looking pleasant so he averted his attention to medicine. On August 22, 1642, only a few months into Willis’ medicinal training, Charles assembled his troops and declared war. Charles had one the first battle of the English Civil War at Edgehill on October 23. Oxford became the new capital. In Oxford, the soldiers became ill by an outbreak of typhus. Thomas Willis described this epidemic as “so grievous that in short time after, either side left off, and from that time, for many months, fought not with the enemy but with the disease” and stated that “ the very air seemed infected.” Though Willis had only a few months of training under his belt, he had developed a “doctor’s eye” and observed the disease as it spread from the returned soldiers to the soldiers at home to the town to the countryside. He observed the whelks and spots of the skin, the disordered pulse, and the raging heat. Both his father and stepmother was taken ill by the epidemic and died. Willis believed that only if the King would return home, could order be restored throughout the lands. A pamphlet had even arisen pleading with the King to return home to cure Londoners of the King’s Evil. By this time Parliament was advancing towards Oxford. King Charles only advantage was his well trained, disciplined army. He asked for volunteers to defend the city, amongst them was Thomas Willis. Upon returning to Oxford after two years, Willis could see much had changed. Seven thousand soldiers were now stationed in Oxford. Oxford was once a reputable, “healthy country city” but now a “sick, foul slum.” People wandered the streets, rats began to multiply and plague began to spread throughout Oxford and more lives were lost as a result. While stationed in Oxford, Willis spent his time teaching himself medicine. He read any books he came across and talked to anyone with some medical knowledge.
One of the King’s physicians was a teacher named William Harvey. Harvey had made a discovery twenty years earlier: “the heart sends blood through the body in a loop.” Harvey tested his observations with experiments. Harvey looked to Aristotle as a leader. Forty years earlier, Harvey had studied under Hieronymus Fabricius, who showed that the eyes pupils respond to light and gave the first proper account of the placenta’s function. Harvey understood that Fabricius had made an error about the anatomy of the veins. Fabricius concluded that the little doors must slow down the blood as it flowed away from the heart through the veins. Harvey, on the other hand, recognized a great importance in these floodgates. He believed that “if these little doors were designed for blocking the flow of blood”, it must have meant that “the veins must carry blood toward the heart, not away from it.” He studied animals to verify that this was correct and found that the more he studied the blood, the more important it became. Harvey was so reputable that he was asked to teach at the College of Physicians. He was fascinated with the brain though he left behind no theories of how the worked. He said, “The brain itself neither sees nor hears, and so forth, yet it does all these things.” He is considered today to have been a “proto-psychologist” and was “one of the few physicians who could cure devils in the head.” Although the brain was of no importance since “sensation does not derive from the brain,” Harvey believed that the blood could feel. During his time at court, he served the King James with a deep devotion saying, “The King… is the foundation of his Kingdom, the sun of the world around him, the heart of the republic, the foundation whence all power, all grace, doth flow.” Harvey continued to explore the heart and blood. He predicted blood traveling through the veins towards the heart and that a pulse was caused “when the heart drove surging waves of blood into the arteries.” He said the blood in the body could be recycled over and over again. He contemplated his theories of the little doors and experimented to in fact verify there truths. When King James past and Charles inherited the throne, Harvey and the King became the best of friends. King Charles was considerate when listening to the ideas that most would dismiss. In 1628, Harvey released his book, The Motion of the Heart. It was disregarded and unaccepted by the people because he was making claims in experiments using autopsies. His reputation was diminishing to a crazed scientist. Taking the criticism with an open mind, he decided to do more research with the help of the King. He met a man by the name of Montgomery who had been wounded as a young boy that left an injury with a hole in his chest. When Harvey looked into the man’s chest, he saw the human heart beating. He wrote, “I was almost tempted to think… that the motion of the heart was only to be comprehended by God.” Harvey followed his King to Nottingham, and at the battle of Edgehill, and finally to Oxford where he was treated like a prisoner. His entire life’s work was taken from him by looters and ran sackers.
In 1644, when Thomas Willis had volunteered to be in the war, Harvey was there treating the sick for plague, typhus, and malaria. Many started to understand Harvey’s theories and vowed to learn about the body through observations and experimentation. In fact, Willis would follow Harvey’s example for the rest of his life. “Willis would search for the true nature of blood, which would lead him to the brain, the nerves, and ultimately the soul.”
During the war, Oliver Cromwell came to be a great leader who would further discipline its military. Cromwell overlooked the fact that he was one of the first beginning to establish a democracy; not only a political one, but a religious one as well. Many threats, such as Overton’s mockery, were sent to the conservative orders in Oxford which ridiculed the Aristotelian idea of the soul. Mortalists claimed to preach true Christianity saying the soul was mortal and if the body was dead, an immaterial soul would not be able to break out of a material body.
In the meantime, Archbishop Laud had been beheaded by Parliament for treason. In April of 1646, King Charles sneaked out of Oxford disguised as a servant leaving his people behind. By June of 1646, Oxford forces surrendered to Parliament. Harvey left unnoticed. Willis had left his home where his life had unraveled just a few years prior. The war, in particular the devastation of defeat, was shared by the entire King’s people who were forced to move on and begin a new life.
Critique:
I found myself to be very involved while reading Chapter 4 of Soul Made Flesh. The first thought to cross my mind was that of Willis who “was taught to resolve any controversy by finding a relevant passage in Galen or Aristotle.” In science, I cannot fathom the idea of looking to philosophers for answers. It surprised me that Willis would not have contemplated experimenting with his theories. However, I did find it very interesting that Willis was one of the first to describe the clinical outbreak of typhus, the whelks and spots of the skin, the disordered pulse, and the raging heat. I can only imagine what he thought when he first came into contact with the epidemic.
I also found it very interesting that William Harvey had made the discovery that the heart sends blood through the body in a loop. I liked the way that Harvey thought, to the degree that he looked at the body for himself and tested his observations with experimentation. To me, he seemed like a “think it through” kind of man who wouldn’t conduct only one experiment to come to some conclusion.
In addition to Harvey, his teacher Fabricius was quite appealing. I thought it was intriguing that he showed that the eye’s pupils respond to light and gave the first correct account of the placenta’s function. But it shocked me to find that Fabricius mistook the function of the valves (“little doors”). However, I was reassured when Harvey noticed this mistake. And I can only envision his reaction to seeing Montgomery’s heart beating within his chest. I also found it very fascinating that Harvey studied the embryology of a chicken at least in the sense to investigate the heart and blood.
Overall, the chapter was very engaging with all the different theories and observations made by these scientists. I feel that science back then was so different from what it is today. By this, I mean looking to philosophy to answer the questions posed by these scientists or dissecting any animal that could bring them one step further to some observational conclusion.
9 comments:
I have to agree with Burd that this chapter was very interesting; the fact that such great medical revelations were discovered by using what would be considered as crude methodologies. How amazing were the people of that time that they were able have a discerning eye that allowed them to see the flaws of Galen’s account of how the body works and build a better model. What great vision they possessed to see how Aristotle’s teaching on geometric flow of a circle could inspire someone to apply it to circulation of blood throughout the body. Simply amazing!
Chapter 4 works in conjunction with the previous chapter to outline the medical education of Thomas Willis, which inevitably resulted in his groundbreaking work in the field of neurobiology. In explaining the revolutionary discoveries of Willis’ teacher, William Harvey, Zimmer alludes to the gravity of the impact that was inflicted upon the pupil. I agree with both Burd and Kinkylady when they say that this chapter was very intriguing, and I share their feelings of amazement regarding the scientific discoveries that were discussed.
It was interesting to learn where certain ideals, such as the fact that blood circulated in a loop and the conundrum of the “chicken or the egg”, originated. Considering that a majority of the fundamental capabilities of the human body have already been elucidated, I think we as scientists take for granted the plethora of scientific knowledge that has been provided for us, and, to a certain degree, we fail to recognize the type of research—regardless of how primitive it may have been—required to make such discoveries. I must admit that I was not entirely surprised that English physicians were reluctant to accept Harvey’s findings and that they continued to rely on philosophers. The Church’s beliefs still prevailed at this time, regardless of the advancements in scientific knowledge, thus far. Shermack Compton states in his book, An Introduction to Positive Psychology, that psychology was not considered a science, but a subset of philosophy, until mathematical analysis was applied to support proposed theories. In the same sense, I do not believe that the scientific community of England could accept Harvey’s discovery until a clear distinction between secular and spiritual beliefs was established.
In light of Harvey’s work regarding the human heart, I could not help but wonder about the antiseptic precautions that he and King Charles must have taken when they placed their fingers into the viscount Montgomery’s chest. Also, I found Zimmer’s depiction of Charles and his relationship with Harvey surprisingly pleasant, considering he appeared to be such a tyrant in the previous chapter. Moreover, I was astonished by the fact that he “was one of his few sympathetic listeners” (72) and that “helped Harvey in his research whenever he could” (74), especially since he considered himself ‘God’s lieutenant on Earth” (45). Perhaps this was indicative of the upcoming establishment of the aforementioned distinction between the two intertwined sects.
For more info on:
1) William Harvey and his work on the human heart: http://www.williamharvey.org/wm_harvey.htm
2) Charles' relationship with Harvey: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1870277&pageindex=1
I enjoyed reading Burd’s summary of Chapter 4 from Soul Made Flesh as it reinforced a lot of the information regarding the history and scientific propositions that were made during the mid 1600s. When it comes to science looking to philosophers for either answers or to merely be pointed in the right direction, I am whole-heartedly in support of this. I don’t feel as though science would have come as far as it has without some form of assistance from philosophers. The two disciplines seem to be more intertwined than we give them credit for. It would have been very interesting if Burd could have outlined some of her reasons as to why she cannot envision science looking to philosophy for answers in this day and age.
However, similar to Burd, I was also initially a little miffed that Wills may not have given as much precedence to his theories as I would have expected him to. Nonetheless, Zimmer does state that Wills, though aware of and appreciative of Galen and his teachings, was interested in new theories as well. Hence, though he was not as out-spoken as William Harvey, he did begin to see what he had been taught to believe regarding the workings of the body, in a new light.
I, like Burd, found it enjoyable to read about William Harvey and his road to a number of significant discoveries. He had enough confidence to question firmly held theories and beliefs concerning the mechanics of the body. Harvey carried out a series of experiments to both dispute the ideas posed by his predecessors and to give credence to his own observations. Hence, I can fully understand Burd’s admiration and respect for him.
It was very interesting to read about the slow build up of new constructs while older ones were beginning to be questioned. I enjoyed learning about how one idea slowly built on another to eventually come up with a theory that makes somewhat sense to us today.
* William Harvey’s letters to various distinguished personnel are included in this website. It is in regards to his theory of how blood circulates in the body of animals and the activity of the heart.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1628harvey-blood.html
* For more information on Harvey’s mentor, Fabricius read:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05745a.htm
** This isn’t a link, but if anyone is interested in the relationship between philosophy and science, Phillip Frank’s Philosophy of Science: The Link Between Science and Philosophy is a good read (it also gives us an idea of the deterioration of this relationship).
Suba responded in her comments that it would have been very interesting if I could have outlined some of my reasons as to why I cannot envision science looking to philosophy for answers. I feel that philosophy asks questions that have never been answered fully; it tends to leave me blinded and “out of the loop”. I think that philosophy is merely opinions of someone's beliefs and how that is either similar/ dissimilar to another’s views on a specific topic. As a scientist, I do not feel comfortable with this. I seek to find answers by means of evidence or facts. In a rather crude description, I feel that philosophy raises deep questions giving brief, inexplicit answers while science asks specific questions and attempts to give tangible proof. Revisiting the Religion vs. Science debate, I feel that science and philosophy contradict and overlap with each other as well; although, this is not nearly as severe a controversy.
I agree with Burd that after reading Chapter 4 of Soul Made Flesh that it’s amazing how Willis “was taught to resolve any controversy by finding a relevant passage in Galen or Aristotle.” In addition, it must have been a great privilege for him to be able to have the knowledge to describe to the people about their illnesses such as the outbreak of typhus, the whelks, the disordered pulse, and the raging heat. I can image how intense this must have been for him to be the one depended on in finding solutions to the people who were in need of curing their diseases. He says that it was “so grievous that in short time after, either side left off, and from that time, for many months, fought not with the enemy but with the disease.”
Also, I thought it was fascinating to read how William Harvey had made the discovery that heart sends blood through the body in a loop. His knowledge of the human body gave other physicians and philosophers in the past a chance to look at other explanations of how a human body is functioned and how it’s all associated with each other. He carried out experiments from what he had observed of the bodies he uncovered. And from there he “think it through” to have it all make sense to him and others of how and why the human body is made this way. One of the experiments he carried out to further make sense of how the heart and blood works was to study the embryology of a chicken to which I thought was exciting by how he can relate to an animal’s body to a human.
Related Links:
Epidemics and Famine in the Little Ice Age
http://www.jstor.org/view/00221953/ap010042/01a00060/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi%3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3dThomas%2bwillis%2band%2bhis%2bcontribution%2bto%2bthe%2bepidemic%26wc%3don&frame=noframe¤tResult=00221953%2bap010042%2b01a00060%2b0%2cFE3F18&userID=435c1661@loyola.edu/01cce440602d1c115536c1070&dpi=3&config=jstor
William Harvey, 1578-1657,
Discoverer of the Circulation of Blood: In Commemoration of the 400th Anniversary of His Birth
http://www.jstor.org/view/00063568/ap040197/04a00050/0?currentResult=00063568%2bap040197%2b04a00050%2b0%2c0F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3DWilliam%2BHarvey%2Band%2Bhis%2Bobservation%2Bof%2Bhuman%2Bheart%26wc%3Don
Ynailng says that chapter 4 works in conjunction with Thomas Willis' medical education. I agree with her. I also thought this chapter was intersesting as well. Though I find it interesting, I am still finding it hard to understand why talk of other scientists are involved in the chapters. The only connection I tend to notice is that of trying to figure out where the soul "resides."
I also totally agree with Burd and Laine as to why Willis and Harvey would look to philosophers such as Aristotle and Galen for answers. I guess in today's society as scientists we are to do research and experiments in order to find the right answers. It makes sense, though, as to why they would look to philosophers. The philosophers were the scientists experiments and research. It was noted that Harvey published a book called The Motion of the Heart and people disregarded it because he used autopsies. I see this as a setback and the reason why the scientists refered to philosophers: they were not really allowed to conduct many experiments in order to research the answers to their questions.
Here are some websites to enjoy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhus
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1628harvey-blood.html
“But by Hercules! No such pores can be demonstrated, nor in fact do any such exist,” wrote William Harvey, who is my favorite character in Chapter 4 (71). He was the first one to investigate and discover truth about the heart. There were others who had theories as to the activities of the heart, but these scientific philosophers, which are what they seem to be, were proven wrong by the curiosity of one man – Harvey. I agree with ‘Burd’ that Harvey seemed like a “think it through” kind of man. He did what seemed to me, like the first logical experiment mentioned by Zimmer. He disproved Galen, who was hailed by all, simply through injecting water through the chamber of an ox heart. He followed with an array of experiments to further investigate the workings of the heart.
Until ‘ynaling’ mentioned it, it hadn’t occurred to me that Harvey and the Kind would have taken special antiseptic precaution when touching Viscount Montgomery’s heart. Zimmer, in his writing, gave me the mental image of an excited Harvey directly sticking his fingers into the hole in Montgomery’s heart and then showing the king, who proceeded to do the same. Now, if they had antiseptics, in what form would they be? Would they have used alchohol? Vinegar, perhaps?
There is one part of the chapter that I am quite confused about, however. On page 67, Zimmer states Harvey’s findings that “there was no difference between the blood in the two sets of vessels [arteries and veins].” On the contrary, on page 71, Zimmer mentions Harvey’s understanding of red blood of the arteries, and purplish blood of the veins, via the dissection of Pigeons’ hearts. Is this a contradiction, or in the first instance, did Harvey expose the blood from the veins of fish to air, which caused it to oxygenate and attain the red color?
In case hyperlinks do not work, please refer to the following websites for more information:
William Harvey
www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/harvey_william.shtml
Galen
campus.udayton.edu/~hume/Galen/galen.htm
I really enjoyed this chapter since I was introduced to some amazing men that made quite an impact on scientific advancement. When reading this chapter, I was a little embarrassed since I never knew about William Harvey’s contributions to science. I was very amazed that he was able to understand the function of not only the heart but of the veins and arteries as well. I agree with Burd when she called him a “think it through kind of man.” Harvey was extremely conscientious, which is why I have a lot of respect for his work. Also it made me very angry when other physicians during his time criticized him and tried to ruin his reputation. Even the way Harvey handled the situation revealed his true character as someone with humility and class. I think it was commendable of him to continue his work after all the criticism. Also, It was disappointing to read that his notes were stolen by his adversaries after years of work and study.
Also, I am just as bewildered by Montgomery’s hole in his chest as Harvey (74). Even though he covered the hole with a metal plate it still amazes me that he had a hole in his chest for most of his life yet maintained good health. I am surprised that Zimmer did not mention if Montgomery experienced any problems, such as air pressure around his heart or infections. Since, during that time parts of England were extremely filthy. It must have been an experience for Harvey and King Charles to finally observe a functioning human heart after all their research on animals. Zimmer did mention that they were able to feel the diastole and systole as blood surged in and out of the heart confirming Harvey’s predictions on the movement of blood.
After reading Burd’s second post I can understand why it’s hard for her to “fathom the idea of looking to philosophers for answers.” I find that I also like how science provides evidence to answer some of my questions, while philosophy and even religion can leave me with just more questions. But with religion especially, I think faith plays an important part when searching for answers. I think it’s important to rely and trust in God to reveal to us what we need to know in due time. The waiting is the hard part, especially for me! I also think that if all our questions were answered by science we would have nothing to wonder or question.
Finally, I agree with my fellow classmates that this chapter was interesting and with each chapter more and more of Thomas Willis’ life and character is revealed. I am looking forward to reading more about Willis in the upcoming chapters.
Check out the figure on this website. It is from one of Harvey’s books that illustrates how he determined blood flow in veins and arteries by using someone’s arm: http://www.timelinescience.org/resource/students/blood/harvey.htm
Very interesting post and excellent, thought-provoking comments from everyone!
Regarding the philosophy versus science questions, here's something important to keep in mind: science IS most certainly a branch of philosophy! Contemporary science stems from a branch of philosophy called Natural Philosophy, which itself is based in large part on a branch of philosophy called 'Pragmatism'. That is to say, how do scientists define "truth" (lower case T)? Something is 'true' if it gives us both explanatory power and allows us to accurately predict an outcome. Scientific truth allows us to get from point A to point B, and to cure diseases. We can get to the moon from earth because of the 'truth' behind our mathematical understanding of physical laws. Note, however, that just because "truth" with a lower case T allows us to do get from point A to B does NOT necessarily mean that it is the accurate and complete Truth with a capital T. It is just good enough for us to both predict and explain things with a reasonably good level of accuracy. The theory (theory = a body of knowledge) of evolution is a good example. It gives scientists tremendous explanatory power, and it allows us to do useful things like cure diseases and predict where new diseases will crop up. It does NOT imply that it explains the whole Truth, but it's a pretty good start.
So, don't badmouth philosophers. My wife is a professor of philosophy :) And, as scientists you are all also philosophers! Remember, "PhD" stands for Doctor of **Philosophy**
Post a Comment