when Harvey’s work on the Heart was published.[29]
The appearance of Harvey’s book on the Motion of the Heart and Blood seems almost immediately to have attracted the attention of all the better intellects among the medical men of Europe. The subject was not one, indeed, greatly calculated to interest the mass of mere practitioners; had it been a book of receipts it would have had a better chance with them; but the anatomists and physiologists and scientific physicians would seem at once to have taken it up and canvassed its merits. The conclusions come to in the work, there can be no question, took the medical world by surprise; it was not prepared for such a proposition as a ceaseless circular movement of the blood, with the heart for the propelling organ; for the latter point, be it understood, was even as great a novelty as the former.
Coming unexpectedly, and differing so widely from the ancient and accepted notions, we cannot wonder that Harvey’s views were at first rejected almost universally. The older intellects, in possession of the seats and places of authority, regarded them as idle dreams; and upon the faith of this conclusion, their author was set down and treated by the vulgar as a crackbrained innovator. Two years, however, elapsed before aught in contravention of the new doctrines saw the light, and this came at length not from any of the more mature anatomists of Europe—their minds were made up, the thing was absurd—but from a young physician, of the name of Primerose, of Scottish descent, but French by birth. Primerose had been a pupil of Joannes Riolanus, professor of anatomy in the University of Paris; he had doubtless listened to his master’s demonstration of the absurdity of the Harveian doctrine of the circulation, and by and by he set himself down, by way apparently of exercising his ingenuity, to try the question, not by fact and experiment, but by the precepts he had imbibed from his teacher and the texts of the ancients. The essay of Primerose[30] may be regarded as a defence of the physiological ideas of Galen against the innovations of Harvey. It is remarkable for any characteristic rather than that of a candid spirit in pursuit of truth; it abounds in obstinate denials, and sometimes in what may be termed dishonest perversions of simple matters of fact, and in its whole course appeals not once to experiment as a means of investigation.—Harvey, having already, and in the very outset of his work, demonstrated the notions untenable which it was Primerose’s purpose to reassert and defend, of course deigned him no reply; he could never dream of going over the barren ground he had already trodden, in the hope of convincing such an antagonist.
Æmylius Parisanus, a physician of Venice, was the next to assail the Harveian doctrine of the circulation,[31] and still with the old instruments—the authority of Galen and the ancients generally. Parisanus perceived Harvey’s views as directly contravening an hypothesis to which he had formerly committed himself, namely, that the spleen was the organ of sanguification and the furnisher of nutriment to the heart; on this ground may Parisanus have been led to enter the lists against the new opinions. But he proved a most flimsy antagonist. Ignorant of some of the commonest points of anatomy, and frequently misinterpreting the writer he combats, writing himself in a style the most elaborately involved, and consequently obscure, it is frequently difficult even to guess at his meaning. Like his countryman of the poet, Signor Gratiano, he
“Speaks an infinite deal of nothing; more than any man in all Venice: his reasons are two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them; and when you have them they are not worth the search.”
Had not Dr. Ent, in his Apology for the Circulation, given the name a place on his title-page, Parisanus’s opposition would scarcely have merited mention here.
Nearly at the same time with Parisanus, Caspar Hofmann, the learned and laborious professor of Nuremberg, attracted particular attention, both in his teaching and his writings, as the opponent of the Harveian doctrine. The opposition here is the more remarkable from Hofmann’s having shaken himself wholly free from the authority of Galen, and, as Slegel says, even admitted the lesser circulation of the blood through the lungs; but this must have been at a later period of his life, for in his works, up to Harvey’s time, the idea he had of the motion of the blood may be gathered from his likening it to a lake or sea agitated by the wind, the veins being the conduits of the nutrient blood, the arteries of the vital spirits. Hofmann was an adversary whom Harvey held worthy of notice; and accordingly we have seen that our immortal countryman took advantage of the opportunity, whilst attending the Earl of Arundel and his party, to visit Hofmann at Nuremberg, and make a demonstration of the new views before him. Unhappily this was done in vain, for Hofmann continued unconvinced, though, towards the end of his very long life, he did show some signs of yielding.[32]
Joannes Veslingius, professor in the University of Padua, and one of the best anatomists of the age, about this time, addressed two letters to Harvey, in which he politely but candidly states his objections to the new doctrine. One great difficulty with Veslingius was the remarkable difference between the colour of the arterial and the venous blood. It did not seem possible to him that the fluid, which was of a bright scarlet in the arteries, could be the same as the dark-coloured fluid which is found in the veins. In the course of his letter, Veslingius takes occasion to animadvert on the uncivil tone and indifferent style of the productions of Primerose and Parisanus.[33]
But the theory of the double circulation was not now to meet with opposition only; the comprehensive intellect that had seized and worked that theorem to a rational demonstration was no longer to be left alone against the world in its defence. Roger Drake, a young Englishman, had the honour of appearing in his inaugural dissertation, proposed under the auspices of Joannes Walæus, the distinguished professor of Leyden, in 1639, as the enlightened advocate of the Harveian views; and in the course of the same year, H. Regius (Leroy) also came forward at Utrecht with certain Theses favorable to the doctrine of the circulation. Ten years had not lessened Primerose’s enmity to Harvey and his views; for, on the appearance of these academical essays, he speedily showed himself again in the field as their opponent, publishing distinct animadversions upon each of the inaugural dissertations in the course of the year.[34] Regius (Leroy), a man of much less mind and information than Drake, if we may decide from their works, was, in turn, not slow to encounter Primerose;[35] and the spirit in which he did so, as well as the temper and taste of the reply which Primerose, true to his controversial nature, very soon produced,[36] may, to a certain extent, be imagined from the titles of their several productions, which are given below.
Still more illustrious advocates of the Harveian circulation presented themselves in Werner Rolfink,[37] professor of anatomy at Jena, and the celebrated Renatus Descartes. Rolfink, from his position and his popularity as a teacher, had immense influence in disseminating the new doctrine over Europe; and Descartes, under the ægis of his powerful name, was no less effective by means of his writings.[38] Opposed in his advocacy of the Harveian views by Vopiscus Fortunatus Plempius, professor of Louvain, Descartes made himself still more thoroughly master of the subject, and when he next appears as its advocate, which he does by and by, he even appeals to the experiments he had made on living animals in support of his convictions and conclusions.
The controversy on the circulation had been carried on up to this time abroad rather than at home; Harvey seems to have won over to his side all the men of his own country who, by their education and acquirements, might have been fitted to array themselves against him: his lectures at the College of Physicians had apparently satisfied all his contemporaries. But now one of Harvey’s own countrymen made his appearance as the vindicator of the circulation from the misrepresentations and misapprehensions of its adversaries. This was Dr. afterwards Sir George Ent, a good scholar, a respectable anatomist, conversant with physical science generally, a gentleman by his position and profession, acquainted with all the leading men of letters and science of his time, and in particular, enjoying the friendship of William Harvey. Ent’s work is entitled ‘An Apology for the Circulation of the Blood, with a Reply to Æmylius Parisanus.’[39] In his letter to Harvey, which stands in front of the work, Ent lets it appear that he was anxious to come before the world as the advocate of the circulation; he first thought of making Primerose the particular object of his animadversions, but as this opponent had already been very effectually handled by Henry Leroy, he preferred taking
