Hello, I'm Mr. Marchant, and thank you for joining me for today's history lesson.

I'll be guiding you through all of our resources today, and my top priority is to make sure that by the end of our lesson, you are able to successfully meet our learning objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on Renaissance medicine and health, where we are asking ourselves, what medical knowledge changed in this period? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to evaluate the effectiveness of Renaissance approaches to the treatment and prevention of disease.

There are three key words which will help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are humoural, quack, and fasting.

Humoural refers to something related to the medical theory of the Four Humours.

Quack is a word used to refer to people or medical practises, which are useless and untrustworthy.

And fasting refers to a period of time when someone avoids eating, often for religious reasons.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts, and we'll begin by focusing on approaches to treatment.

There was both change and continuity in Renaissance approaches to treatment.

Some new methods intended to cure disease came into use, but many mediaeval approaches remained widespread.

Herbal remedies remained a popular form of Renaissance treatment.

When questioned about her ability to help the sick in 1592, one woman, Joan Warden, explained that she used ointments and herbs to cure many diseases.

Indeed, many people continued to trust local wise women like Joan, who often had extensive knowledge of plants and herbs.

The effectiveness of herbal remedies remained mixed though.

"The Complete Herbal," a popular book published in 1653 by the apothecary Nicholas Culpeper, detailed many herbs and their medical benefits.

However, whereas Culpeper correctly wrote that privet leaves can reduce inflammation, he incorrectly claimed that peonies could cure epilepsy.

Meanwhile, European exploration in the Americas meant that some new plants and herbs were used as treatments in the Renaissance period.

For one, Thomas Sydenham promoted the use of cinchona, which comes from the bark of trees in South America, as it was found to be an effective cure for malaria.

However, there were other plants and herbs from the Americas, which proved ineffective as treatments.

This included tobacco, which was wrongly said to cure many conditions such as toothache and plague.

Chemical treatments also became more common.

Syphilis, a sexually transmitted infection, spread on a large scale across Renaissance Europe.

This encouraged increased use of mercury as it can help heal similar sores created by syphilis.

However, there were many problems with this treatment.

For one, mercury was expensive, so only wealthy patients could afford it.

Even more seriously, was Mercury can help? It does not actually cure syphilis, and it is toxic, so it gradually poisoned those patients who did take it.

So, thinking about what we've just heard, which chemical was widely used to treat syphilis? Was it arsenic, lead, or mercury? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

Mercury was widely used to treat syphilis during the Renaissance period.

And let's try another question.

This time, we have a statement which reads, "European exploration of the Americas helped in the development of treatments for malaria." Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was true, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So why is it that that original statement was correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well then to everybody who said, "Cinchona, which comes from the bark of trees in South America, was found to be an effective cure for malaria." Supernatural forms of treatment also remained in use, including the royal touch for scrofula sufferers.

Because it was believed that monarchs were appointed by God, it was wrongly thought that a monarch's touch might cure people of scrofula, also known as the king's evil.

The royal touch actually became far more common than it had ever been before 1500.

King Charles II alone touched over 92,000 people between 1660 and 1685.

Some traditional treatments did face growing criticism.

Bloodletting and purging were both humoural practises, which aimed to remove excess liquids from the body to restore patient's health.

Nicholas Culpeper was highly critical of both of these practises.

Similarly, in 1665, the physician Nathaniel Hodges concluded that bloodletting was more likely to kill patients than help them.

However, most other medics continued to support humoural treatments.

In fact, when Charles II fell ill in 1685, his doctors drained nearly a litre of blood from veins in his arms and neck, and also used emetics to make Charles vomit.

Other than inflicting pain on the king, this was all to no effect as Charles died within days anyway.

So, let's make sure we have a secure understanding.

What does the use of the royal touch suggest about Renaissance medicine? That some supernatural treatments became more popular, that some supernatural treatments became less popular, or that supernatural treatments went out of use entirely? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A.

The use of the royal touch suggests that some supernatural treatments became more popular during the Renaissance period.

In fact, King Charles II alone touched over 92,000 people during his reign under the belief that this would cure them of scrofula.

Let's try another question.

This time, we have a statement which reads, "Bloodletting was mainly used to treat poor patients who couldn't afford better treatments." Is that statement true or false? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So why is it that that original statement was incorrect? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said humoural treatments like bloodletting continue to be used for many patients, including rich and powerful individuals like King Charles II.

So, now we've reached a good point to put all of our knowledge about approaches to treatment into practise.

I want you to complete the table by identifying an example of each type of Renaissance treatment and to describe whether it was effective or not.

One example has been done for you.

So we can see next to where it says a type of treatment and herbal, an example of using peonies has been given.

And in our final column where it says, "Was it effective?" it's been written that it was ineffective at curing epilepsy.

So, pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect upon your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So I asked you to complete the table by identifying an example of each type of Renaissance treatment and describe whether it was effective or not.

And your answers may have included, for another herbal treatment, you may have said cinchona, and that it did effectively cure malaria.

For an example of a chemical treatment, you may have identified mercury and have noted that it actually poisoned syphilis patients, so it didn't really help them enough.

For a supernatural treatment, you may have identified the royal touch and the fact that it was ineffective at curing scrofula.

And for a humoural treatment, you may have identified bloodletting and have noted that it was ineffective and could harm patients.

So really well done if your own responses look something similar to that model, which we've just seen.

So now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson where we're going to think about quack medicine.

During the Renaissance period, and especially in the 17th century, there was a rise in quack medicine.

The rise in quack medicine and quack doctors has been noted by historians and was also commented on by people at the time.

Quacks were people who claimed to possess uniquely affected medicines.

In reality, quacks were usually unqualified, lacked medical expertise and promoted cure-alls, which they knew were ineffective.

For instance, a drink known as Duffy's Elixir was marketed in the 17th century as far better than all other medicines and capable of treating all extremes.

In truth, the elixir had no curing properties.

Other quacks also resorted to lies, including those who claim to sell ground unicorn horn as a proven cure for plague.

Quacks were severely criticised by qualified professionals.

Nathaniel Hodges even wrote that quacks were more deadly than diseases like syphilis and scurvy put together.

However, the care provided by medical professionals was often too expensive for ordinary people, and it was not effective in many other instances.

By contrast, quacks boasted in person and in print about their effective cure-alls and their reasonable prices.

Therefore, despite the complaints of professionals like Hodges, many people who are anxious about their health turned to quacks for help.

So, thinking about what we've just heard, what were people who claim to possess uniquely affected medicines called? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was quacks.

And let's try another question.

This time, I want you to identify one example of a quack medicine sold in a Renaissance period.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to anybody who mentioned one of the following answers, Duffy's Elixir or ground unicorn horn.

These are just two examples of the many quack medicines, which were sold in this period.

And let's try one final question.

I want you to identify two reasons why some people turn to quacks over medical professionals.

Was it because quacks claim to sell cure-alls, because quacks scientifically tested their medicines, because quacks were better qualified, or because quacks were less expensive? Pause video here and press play when you are ready to check your answers.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answers were A and D.

Although quacks were untrustworthy and criticised by many medical professionals, many ordinary people still turn to them for help because quacks claim to sell cure-alls, which could help treat them, and because quacks were also less expensive than other medics, making it easier for people to access their services.

So, we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about quack medicine into practise.

I want you to explain one reason why many people turn to quacks for medical treatment in the Renaissance period.

You should ensure that you support your reason with at least one example and explain the relevance of this to your argument.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to explain one reason why many people turn to quacks for medical treatment in a Renaissance period.

And your answer may have included, many people turned to quacks in a Renaissance period because they believed it would help them secure effective medical treatment.

Many quacks claim they had medicines, such as Duffy's Elixir, which could cure people of multiple or even all diseases.

This appealed to people who were anxious about their health and wanted to protect it.

In fact, cure-alls were even more appealing because the boast of quacks contrasted with people's knowledge that there were many diseases which professionals, like physicians and apothecaries, were unable to treat.

So, really well done if your own answer look something like that model, which we've just seen.

And now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today where we're going to think about approaches to prevention.

Just like with medical treatments, there was both change and continuity in Renaissance approaches to prevention.

Similarly, these preventative methods also varied in terms of their effectiveness at protecting people from disease.

Because it was still believed that many diseases were sent by God as a punishment for sin, religion remained a key aspect of prevention during the Renaissance period.

Many people hoped religious prayer would protect their health.

Similarly, when plague hit England during the reign of Elizabeth I in 1563, the government ordered that those who were healthy enough should fast on Wednesdays as an act of penance.

It was believed that these acts of penance might encourage God to end His punishments.

So let's check our understanding.

What were healthy people instructed to do every Wednesday during a plague in 1563? Was it donate to medical research, have a day of fasting, or to take medicine? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

During a plague in 1563, people who were healthy enough in England were instructed to have a day of fasting every Wednesday in hope that these acts of penance would encourage God to end His punishment as that's what people thought was responsible for causing the plague.

Increasing attention was paid to preventing the spread of infectious diseases in this period.

As many people believe diseases could be spread by bad air, known as miasma, efforts were taken to prevent foul smells from developing in the first place.

Physicians visiting plague victims often wore a pomander, hoping that pleasant-smelling herbs would protect them.

For similar reasons, the city of London required that at times of plague, waste should regularly be cleaned from streets to prevent bad smells, which might corrupt the air and spread the disease further.

However, while street cleaning had some preventative benefits by improving sanitation, pomanders had no effect on preventing disease.

Authorities were more effective where they took steps to isolate those who were infected.

For instance, from 1518 onwards, households in London infected with plague were ordered to isolate for 40 days and give a clear indication that there were infected people inside.

Those infected with plague were also sometimes sent to pest houses to be isolated with other sufferers.

Pest houses like the one established at Tothill Fields in London in 1638 were removed from where most people lived and so helped to restrict contact between infected people and those who were healthy, thereby reducing the spread of diseases like plague.

So, thinking about what we've just heard, why did plague orders demand regular street cleaning? Was it to avoid encouraging pests like rats, to avoid my asthma, or to avoid water contamination? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B.

Plague orders demanded regular street cleaning to try and avoid miasma.

It was believed that bad smells like those that might come from dirty streets corrupted the air and caused diseases to spread.

So it was hoped that keeping streets clean would prevent miasma developing in the first place and therefore protect more people's health.

And let's write another question.

This time, I want you to write the missing word in the following sentence.

Pest houses were used to, blank, those infected with plague from those who were still healthy.

So what's the missing word? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the missing word was isolate.

Pest houses were used to isolate those infected with plague from those who were still healthy.

By preventing contact between these two groups, it was intended that it would be harder for infectious diseases like plague to spread.

So, we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge from today's lesson into practise.

We have a statement which reads, "Approaches to the treatment and prevention of disease became significantly more effective during the Renaissance period." And I want to know, how far do you agree? As part of your answer, you should ensure that you refer to Renaissance treatments and prevention, that you refer to both changes and continuities, and that you provide an overall judgement in response to the question.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So we had the statement, "Approaches to the treatment and prevention of disease became significantly more effective during the Renaissance period." And I asked, how far did you agree? Your answer may have included, there were some improvements to the effectiveness of Renaissance forms of treatment.

For example, exploration in the Americas allowed new plants to be used as cures.

Cinchona, which comes from South America, began use as an effective treatment for malaria in this period.

However, some changes actually created new dangers for patients, like the risk of mercury poisoning for those given it to treat syphilis.

At the same time, many traditional but ineffective treatments, such as bloodletting, remained even to treat British kings.

Greater effort to isolate sufferers of infectious diseases did improve the effectiveness of disease prevention.

For instance, in London, authorities began to isolate plague sufferers in their homes or in distant pest houses, making it harder for disease-carrying germs to spread to healthy people.

Nevertheless, the spread of plague was still often blamed on God and miasma, meaning many methods of prevention, like fasting or wearing pomanders, continued to waste efforts.

Therefore, whilst treatment and prevention became more effective, it would be inaccurate to call this improvement significant.

So, really well done if your own response look something like that model, which we've just seen.

And that means we've now reached the end of today's lesson, which puts us in a good position to summarise our learning about Renaissance approaches to treatment and prevention.

We've seen that many mediaeval treatments, such as herbal remedies and humoural approaches, remained common in the Renaissance period.

American herbs and plants, such as cinchona, were introduced as cures.

Quack medicines like Duffy's Elixir, which claimed to cure all, became increasingly popular in a Renaissance period.

These were not effective.

More effort was spent on isolating those with infectious diseases, which helped fight the spread of plague.

And religion and belief in miasma meant that many ineffective approaches to prevention, such as fasting, remained in use.

So, really well done for all of your work during today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to help guide you for our resources today, and I look forward to seeing you again in the future as we continue to think about Renaissance medicine and health.