also controvert Primerose where it was necessary.—Ent’s Apology is, undoubtedly, a learned, though perhaps a somewhat pompous and pedantic book; still the writer occasionally shows both wit and fancy in handling his antagonist, and always learning enough in dealing with his subject. “Nothing, indeed,” to quote Dr. Lawrence,[40] “can be more unlike than Parisanus and Ent; and it is not wonderful, therefore, that one utterly ignorant of physical science confronted by one thoroughly conversant therein—that one, without power of utterance, opposed by one gifted with eloquence—that one, sluggish and inert, in the hands of one active and full of energy, should be effectually vanquished and overcome.” We may imagine, nay, we may be certain, that Harvey was not unacquainted with Ent’s purpose to appear as the advocate of his discovery, nor with the Apology before it saw the light.
Having observed the appearance of certain academical dissertations in defence of the circulation, we perceive the apostles of all new truths, namely, the youthful, at work. Were there not successive generations of men, the world would stand still; the death of the individual was not merely a necessary condition to the enjoyment of life by successive generations, but essential also to the onward progress of mankind. No man who had attained to the age of 40 years, it is said, was found to adopt the doctrine of the circulation; it had to win its way under the safeguard of the Drakes and Leroys especially, that is to say, of the youthful and unprejudiced spirits of the age.
Twenty years after the publication of the ‘Exercitatio de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis,’ Joannes Riolanus, the younger, was delivered of his ‘Encheiridium Anatomicum’ (8vo. Lugd. Batav. 1648), in which he makes a vain attempt to supplant the Harveian doctrine by a new and most extraordinary one of his own, so incongruous and unlikely, that in these days we are irresistibly led to form no very high estimate of the intellect that could have engendered it. It looks to us, indeed, at this time, like condescension on the part of the great English anatomist, that he noticed the abortion of such a tyro in animal physics as the French professor here approves himself. Harvey’s genius could surely have felt no real respect for the illogical intellect of Riolan. But Harvey, when he noticed Riolan’s publication, was in want of a good occasion for a farther development of his own views; and so he seized on the Parisian professor, respectable from his position in the university, and as physician to the queen mother of France, and made him his vehicle—his placard bearer. Harvey, besides, was personally acquainted with Riolan, who had accompanied Mary de Medicis to England on a visit to her daughter the Queen of Charles the First; on which occasion Harvey and Riolan had even held conversations on the subject of the circulation, to which it is said that Riolan when face to face with the propounder, made no objection.
Riolan is by no means totally opposed to a circulation of the blood; he would only limit it to certain arbitrary regions, into which he divides the body: whilst it goes forward in one, it has no existence in another. The nature of his ideas can be gathered from Harvey’s comments on them in his First Disquisition, addressed to the Coryphæus of Anatomists, as he politely designates the Parisian professor.
Having disposed of the original notions of the author of the ‘Encheiridium Anatomicum,’ in this first disquisition, Harvey, in his second, returns to his own views, which he proceeds still further to illustrate and confirm by additional arguments, observations, and experiments. In this admirable essay, we obtain innumerable glimpses of the clearness of Harvey’s judgment, of his admirable powers of observation, and the diligent and excellent use he made of them; we at the same time become aware of the great loss we have sustained through the destruction of his Medical Observations. Riolan, in his Encheiridium, proposed to point out in the structure of the healthy body the seats of the various diseases, and to discuss their nature in conformity with the opinions that had been entertained of them. This was obviously at once a barren and an impracticable route: the matters he had in hand could never have been other than abstractions, and his own observations criticisms on opinions, never on facts. How much more natural and judicious the course which Harvey proposes to himself, when he informs us that in his ‘Medical Anatomy’ he meant, “from the many dissections he had made of the bodies of persons worn out by serious and strange affections, to relate how and in what way the internal organs were changed in their situation, size, structure, figure, consistency, and other sensible qualities, from their natural forms and appearances, such as they are usually described by anatomists; and in what various and remarkable ways they were affected. For even as the dissection of healthy and well-constituted bodies contributes essentially to the advancement of philosophy and sound physiology, so does the inspection of diseased and cachectic subjects powerfully assist philosophical pathology.” This was precisely what Morgagni lived, in some considerable measure, to achieve, and it is that which it has been the business of modern pathology, through the illustrious line of the Baillies, Laennecs, Andrals, Louis, Cruveilhiers, Carswells, Richard Brights, and many others, to render more and more complete.
Riolan never replied to Harvey; but neither did the Parisian Professor attempt to vindicate his views, nor did he exhibit such candour as to own himself otherwise convinced or converted. His doctrine had no abettors, and never bore fruit; it stood a barren ear amidst the lusty, green, and copious harvest, that had already sprung up and overspread the lands.
Harvey must now, indeed, have seen his views assured of general reception at no distant date. The same year in which he himself answered Riolan, Dr. James de Back, of Amsterdam, published his work on the Heart,[41] which is written entirely in harmony with the Harveian doctrines, and the celebrated Lazarus Riverius, Professor of Medicine in the University of Montpellier, publicly defended and taught the circulation of the blood.[42] The following year, Paul Marquard Siegel, of Hamburg, produced his commentary on the Motion of the Blood,[43] in which he addresses himself particularly to a refutation of Riolanus, whose scholar he had been, and at the same time shows himself so thoroughly at home in the general question, that he is able to throw additional light on it by new and ingenious considerations and experiments.
Harvey appears to have been pleased with Slegel’s production; for by and by he sends the Hamburger his new work on Generation, accompanied by an admirable letter, which has happily been preserved.[44] No one in reading that remarkable epistle could suppose that the pen which set it down was in the hand of a man in the 75th year of his age.
The young men of 1628 and 1630, who had been educated in unbelief of the circulation, were now coming into possession of professorial chairs and places of distinction; and having long escaped from leading-strings and made inquiry for themselves, were beginning in many of the European universities to proclaim the better faith through further knowledge that had sprung up within them. Harvey had himself received the seeds of his discovery in Italy; but the fructifying mother was slow to recognize him whom she had so powerfully concurred to form. It was not till 1651 that Harvey’s views were in any way admitted beyond the Alps, when Trullius, a Roman professor, expounded and taught them. About the same time, John Pecquet,[45] of Dieppe, and Thomas Bartholin, the Dane,[46] men of original mind in the one case, of extensive learning and great research in the other, gave in their adhesion to the new doctrine, and spread it far and near by their writings. The victory for the circulation may finally be said to have been won, when Plempius, of Louvain, the old antagonist of Descartes on the subject, retracted all he had formerly written against it, convinced of its truth, as he so candidly informs us, by the very pains, he took to satisfy himself of its erroneousness, and publicly proclaimed his conversion: “Primum mihi hoc inventum non placuit,” says the worthy Plempius—“This discovery did not please me at all at first, as I publicly testified both by word of mouth and in my writings; but by and by, when I gave myself up with firmer purpose to refute and expose it, lo! I refute and expose myself, so convincing, not to say merely persuasive, are the arguments of the author: I examine the whole thing anew and with greater care, and having at length made the dissection of a few live dogs, I find that all his statements are most true.”[47]
From the first promulgation of the doctrine of the circulation, its progress towards ultimate general acknowledgment can scarcely be said for a moment to have been interrupted. The hostility of the Primeroses and Parisanuses and Riolans never interfered with it in fact; the more candid spirits were rather led
