In the Greatrakes article, he addresses various criticisms and questions asked of him. One question posed was “why some are cured and not all, and if this work were of God all would be cured?”, to which he answers that “God may please to make use of such means by [him] as shall operate according to the disposition of the Patient; and therefore cannot be expected to be like effectual in all” (Greatrakes 31). He is also asked to explain “why some are cured at once coming and not all; and why the pains should flye immediately out of some, and take such ambages in others…” (Greatrakes 31). He offers that if those questions “could have a plain and rational account given them, then would there be no reason to account them strange” (Greatrakes 32). What do you make of these explanations? Say you were back in the 17th century and found yourself ill; would you trust in his healing powers despite the lack of “scientific” backing in his explanations? Considering that Greatrakes was active during the Age of Enlightenment, do you think that his explanations using God as the ultimate answer holds to the skeptical (sometimes deistic) views that many prominent theologians of the time held when evaluating “traditional” modes of religious worship, doctrine, and socio-political structure?
The Blog for Medicine and Religion 202, Spring 2014
I think Greatrakes explanations for why certain individuals are more predisposed to be healed are consistent with the framework that there is no strict boundary between physical and spiritual health. Illness was viewed as punishment for immoral behavior or spiritual/ community disharmony. In the 15th century, discussions of leprosy and Jesus healing of lepers relied upon the idea that leprosy was tied to moral contagion and so required complete repentance for healing. It was suggested that only those who were truly repentant could be healed and so depending on the afflicted individual the healing would have various levels of success. This idea seems consistent with what Greatrakes is suggesting because by this explanation depending on the reason for the illness and attitude toward the sickness and its causes the individual would experience different levels of healing . When we talk about scientific explanations and mechanisms it is hard to remember that they were not always as well backed with evidence as they are today. Considering that Greatrakes operated at the boundary to the Age of Enlightenment, these ideas may not have been as well spread to the general public so the validity of scientific explanations meant nothing to them. Sometimes suggested explanations that differed from religious ideas required just as much faith in something that people did not understand.
What I find interesting about the personality of Greatrakes is that he was active during a critical moment when the Enlightenment was beginning to take hold in Europe. The spread of the movement is perhaps a good barometer for people’s increasing tendencies to view the world around them not necessarily as part of the domain of God, but rather in an objective and increasingly utilitarian mode.
In a way Greatrakes pushed to the forefront the question, “Is disease a function of one’s morality or simply an unfortunate occurrence that has no ulterior significance?”. If one were to accept Greatrakes’ rhetoric that he was channeling the power of God that has the ability to heal, then it follows that that person would believe that disease in general is a form of punishment meted out by God. From this line of reasoning naturally follows the assertion that spontaneous remission is a sign of God’s mercy, rather than merely a fortunate outcome of natural processes that are not influenced by ethereal realms. A complicating factor in all this is the role of the placebo effect, which we now realize is quite powerful, especially in such cases where one channels the totality of his faith onto a positive outcome.
Of course here lies a fundamental existential question that modern science is now beginning to ask: how the notions of predestination, higher intelligence and other such philosophical musings of the ancients may be empirically tested, with quantum physics providing a theoretical model.
Valerie, Greatrakes is not firmly in the enlightenment, he has one foot in it, and the other back in the Renaissance. This is what makes the story poignant, we get to see thinking at the crossroads of a paradigm shift. Why would we tend to trust such “healing” more or less than those of the 17th century. Not only was God a reasonable cause for things back then, Satan or the devil was an equally probable cause.
Here are the questions that Robert Boyle posed to Greatrakes. See which questions might indicate Boyle’s disposition towards vitalism.
1. What complexion Mr. Greatrakes is of; whether melancholy , sanguine , phlegmatic etc. What diseases he is, or had been subject to; whether he be lean or fat; vigorous, or weak, etc of what age.
2. How long since, and at what time of his life he first took notice of, and tried the impulse he speaks of to cure diseases? And whether it were preceded by any fit of sickness, or melancholy, or any accident that might have any extraordinary influence upon his mind, and in what manner he received his first impulses?
3. Whether before he applies himself to do a cure, he uses any Ceremony, or other words, or prayer; and if a prayer whether he uses arbitrary words or some form? and if the latter what it is; As also whether whilst he is stroking he employs any peculiar rites, or words, or does, or does not, give thanks when he has done. And whether he require that the patient should do, or say any thing before and after he has stroked.
4. Whether he performs any wonders by barely applying his hand to the part affected, or must also rub it, and in case whether friction be necessary, whether he make it light or strong, and how long he usually continues it?
5. Whether he can perform cures, and remove pains when the patient’s clothes are on, or whether the immediate contact of his hand be requisite.
6. Whether his left hand, and his right hand stroke with equal efficacy; and whether that contact of his cheek, breast, etc. equal that of his hand?
7. Whether his gloves, shirt, and stockings that have been worn immediately upon his flesh, be of equal efficacy with his hand in the cure of diseases, or at least in removing of pain; and whether, in case they be effectual, how long their efficacy will last after his ceasing to wear them; and whether the degrees or duration of their virtue will be increased if they be taken from his body when he is sweating, or at least more then ordinary warm.
8. What will be the efficacy of his spittle, and his urine, and if they have any, how long it will last?
9. Whether his urine be more effectual when warm or cold. Whether its sanative virtue will be preserved longer if it be kept closely stoppered, or otherwise; and whether a little spt of salt, or nitre etc dropped into it, whilst it is yet fresh & sanative, will by changing the texture destroy or impair the virtue; and whether if his unaltered urine be wearily distilled in Balneo , the spirit, or the phlegme, or residence , or all or none of it, will retain a sanative virtue?
10. What diseases are they that Mr. G. cannot at all cure, and among those which he sometimes cures, which are they that he succeeds best, and which he succeeds worst with. And among the former sort what complexions, ages, sexes, etc. do the most favour or disfavour his cures.
11. Whether upon Mr. Gr. his touch, or stroking there ensue ordinarily, or at any time, any quick and manifest evacuation of peccant matter by vomit, siege , sweat, urine, or salivation.
12. Whether Mr. Gr: his sanative power will react to the curing or removing pains in horses, dogs, or other brutes.
13. Whether it be true what is affirmed that the Effluvia of Mr. Gr. his body are well scented, when he has employed no proper means to make it so.
14. Whether Mr. Gr. is able to cure any possessed person, or any disease (if there be any such) produced by witchcraft.
15. Whether Mr. Gr. be able to cure men of differing religions, as Roman Catholics, Soncinians, Jews etc., as also infants, naturals , or distracted persons to whose recovery the faith of the Patient cannot concur.
16. How many times it is usually necessary for the patients to be touched according to their respective infirmities, and with what intervals betwixt those times.
17. Whether the efficacy, or inefficacy of his touch be always proportional to the greater or lesser danger, or obstinacy of the malady, consider’d as physicians are wont to estimate it.