Transcriber’s notes:
The text of this e-book has been preserved as in the original,
including inconsistent capitalisation and hyphenation. Archaic and
inconsistent spellings have also been preserved except where obviously
misspelled in the original.
To assist readers, an additional item (‘Editor’s Introduction’) has
been added to the table of contents. Footnotes are positioned below the
relevant paragraph.
Spelling inconsistencies include (but are not limited to) the following:
Fifty/Fiftie
enjoy/enioye
natural/naturall
physitians/physicians
book/booke
aëreal/aereal/aërial
Corrected misspellings include the following:
preceive → perceive
under-their → understand their
retrogade → retrograde
aditional → additional
aud → and
so → to
Valkveld → Vlackveld
slugglishly → sluggishly
EVERYMAN’S LIBRARY
EDITED BY ERNEST RHYS
SCIENCE
THE CIRCULATION
OF THE BLOOD
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
E. A. PARKYN
THE PUBLISHERS OF _EVERYMAN’S LIBRARY_ WILL BE PLEASED TO SEND FREELY
TO ALL APPLICANTS A LIST OF THE PUBLISHED AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO BE
COMPRISED UNDER THE FOLLOWING TWELVE HEADINGS:
TRAVEL
SCIENCE
FICTION
THEOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY
HISTORY
CLASSICAL
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
ESSAYS
ORATORY
POETRY & DRAMA
BIOGRAPHY
ROMANCE
[Illustration]
IN TWO STYLES OF BINDING, CLOTH, FLAT BACK, COLOURED TOP, AND LEATHER,
ROUND CORNERS, GILT TOP
LONDON: J. M. DENT & CO.
NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.
[Illustration:
HOC
SOLUM
SCIO QUOD
NIHIL
SCIO
]
[Illustration:
An Anatomical
Disquisition on
The MOTION
of the HEART
& BLOOD in
ANIMALS
BY WILLIAM
HARVEY
Translated from
the Latin by
ROBERT WILLIS
London: J·M·Dent & Co.
New York: E·P. Dutton & Co.
]
PRINTED BY HAZELL, WATSON AND
VINEY, LD., LONDON AND AYLESBURY
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION
However much the renewal of classical learning in the fourteenth,
fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries may have furthered the development
of letters and of art, it had anything but a favourable influence on
the progress of science. The interest awakened in the literature of
Greece and Rome was shown in admiration not only for the works of
poets, historians, and orators, but also for those of physicians,
anatomists, and astronomers. In consequence scientific investigation
was almost wholly restricted to the study of the writings of authors
like Aristotle, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, and Galen, and it became the
highest ambition to explain and comment upon their teachings, almost
an impiety to question them. Independent inquiry, the direct appeal
to nature, were thus discouraged, and indeed looked upon with the
utmost distrust if their results ran counter to what was found in
the works of Aristotle or Galen. This spell of ancient authority was
broken by the anatomists of the sixteenth century, who determined at
all costs to examine the human body for themselves, and to be guided
by what their own observations revealed to them; and it was finally
overcome by the independent genius of two men working in very different
scientific spheres, Galileo and Harvey. These illustrious observers
were contemporaries during the greater part of their lives, and were
some years together at the famous University of Padua. Galileo and
Harvey refused to be bound by the teachings of Aristotle and Galen, and
appealed from these authorities to the actual facts of nature which any
man could observe for himself. Their scientific work is therefore of
interest, not only for the innate value of the discoveries they made,
but also because it shows them as pioneers in that independent spirit
of scientific inquiry to which the great advance in natural knowledge
since their time is so largely due.
Harvey’s work, by which his name has been made immortal, strikingly
illustrates this. He was the first to show the nature of the movements
of the heart, and how the blood moved in the body. He did so by putting
on one side authority, and directly appealing to observation and
experiment. The completeness of the success with which this independent
line was taken, as exemplified in his treatise “On the Movement of the
Heart and Blood,” is such as to excite the admiration of every modern
physiologist. “C’est un chef-d’œuvre,” says a distinguished French
physiologist, Flourens, “ce petit livre de cent pages est le plus beau
livre de la physiologie.”[1]
[1] Flourens, Histoire de la Découvert de la Circulation du Sang,
1854.
The discovery made by Harvey was this: That the blood passed from the
heart into the arteries, thence to the veins, by which it was brought
back to the heart again; that the blood moved more or less in a circle,
coming back eventually to the point from which it started. In a phrase,
there was a Circulation of the Blood. Moreover, this circulation
was of a double nature--one circle being from the right side of the
heart to the left through the lungs, hence called the Pulmonary or
Lesser Circulation; the other from the left side of the heart to the
right, through the rest of the body, known as the Systemic or Greater
Circulation. Further, that it was the peculiar office of the heart to
maintain this circulation by its continuous rhythmic beating as long as
life lasts.
This appears very plain and simple to us now--so easy that he who runs
may read: as important as simple, for without this knowledge it is no
exaggeration to say that a real understanding of any important function
of the human body was impossible. And hence it has been contended with
much force that not only the science of physiology, but the scientific
practice of medicine date from this discovery. “To medical practice,”
says Sir John Simon, “it stands much in the same relation as the
discovery of the mariner’s compass to navigation; without it, the
medical practitioner would be all adrift, and his efforts to benefit
mankind would be made in ignorance and at random.... The discovery is
incomparably the most important ever made in physiological science,
bearing and destined to bear fruit for the benefit of all succeeding
ages.”[2]
[2] Harvey Tercentenary Memorial Meeting, Folkestone, September 6,
1871.
When Harvey first approached the subject, there were all kinds of
crude and fantastic ideas regarding the functions and uses of the
heart, bloodvessels, and blood--that the heart was the workshop in
which were elaborated the spirits, a due supply of which was necessary
for many parts of the body; that from the heart the arteries carried
spirits, the veins nutriment to the different parts of the body; that
the arteries contained blood and air mixed together, or only air; that
fuliginous vapours, whatever they may be, passed from the heart along
the bloodvessels; that the septum of the heart, by which its two sides
are completely separated, was riddled with minute holes, like a fine
sieve, through which the blood percolated from the right to the left
side; again, that the heart was the organ in which the heat of the body
was produced. Another favourite theory was that the blood moved from
the heart along certain bloodvessels and back again by exactly the same
channels, after the manner of the rise and fall of the tides, to which
in fact the movement was likened. More curious still, even the best
informed appeared to believe that the arteries terminated in nerves.
Notwithstanding these curious and erroneous speculations there was
not wanting exact and wide knowledge of the anatomy of the human
body. Indeed, before Harvey was born there had lived and died a most
remarkable man known to fame as the “Father of Anatomy.” This was
Vesalius. Vesalius’s knowledge of the human body was so profound that
the only wonder is that he did not forestall Harvey in the discovery
of the circulation. As the result of dissections of the body at the
time when they could be carried out only with great difficulty, and
often at the risk of severe penalties, Vesalius published, when only
twenty-eight years of age, a treatise on Anatomy[3] which cannot fail
to excite the astonishment and admiration of any modern acquainted with
the subject. This work is illustrated with fine engravings made from
drawings by John Calcar, a Flemish artist, and pupil of Titian.[4]
[3] De humani Corporis fabrica, 1543.
[4] Vasari: “Lives of the Painters,” vols. iii. 519, v. 402
(Bohn’s ed.).
The distribution of the bloodvessels in the lungs and many other parts
of the body, the general structure of the heart, the valves in the
veins, were all known before Harvey arrived on the scene. More than
this, the circulation through the lungs, or the Pulmonary Circulation,
appears to have been known to one person at least. Michael Servetus,
famous for his martyrdom on account of his religious opinions, in one
of his theological works[5] does actually describe the blood as passing
from the right side of the heart to the left through the lungs, and
gives good reasons for his belief. Servetus, in his early days, had
been with Vesalius prosector to John Guinterius of Andernach when
Professor of Anatomy at Paris. Guinterius[6] speaks with admiration of
the knowledge and abilities of his two young assistants. Like Vesalius,
Servetus was therefore well acquainted with the anatomy of the body;
but more, he was a physiologist; and no doubt when the cruelty of
theological dispute sent him to the stake at the age of forty-four, it
deprived physiology of a most promising investigator. The book in which
the account of the Pulmonary Circulation is found has a most curious
history. All copies of it, except one, were burnt with Servetus. This
copy became the property of D. Colladon, one of his judges. After
passing through the library of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel it came
into the hands of a Dr. Mead, who undertook in 1723 to issue a quarto
edition of it, but before completion the sheets were seized at the
instance of Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, and destroyed. The Duc de
Valise is said to have given 400 guineas for the original copy, and at
his sale it brought 3,810 livres. It is now in the National Library at
Paris. It may well be questioned therefore whether the discovery of
Servetus was ever known to the anatomists, including Harvey, who wrote
after his death. One of these was Realdus Columbus, who published a
work on Anatomy[7] six years after Servetus died, in which he shows
that he clearly understood the valves of the heart, and describes the
passage of the blood through the lungs. Columbus has been claimed
as the real discoverer of the circulation and as having forestalled
Harvey. But neither Servetus nor Columbus had any notion of the Greater
or Systemic Circulation. And the latter actually says the heart is not
muscular, and speaks of a to-and-fro movement of the blood in the veins.
[5] Restitutio Christianismi, 1553.
[6] Institutiones Anatomici, Epistola Nuncupatoria, 1539.
[7] De Re Anatomica, 1559.
But a third and much more serious precursor of Harvey as the discoverer
has been brought forward in the person of Andreas Cæsalpinus[8] of
Arezzo, justly renowned as the earliest of botanists. He actually used
the word “circulation” in regard to the passage of the blood through
the lungs. The claims of Cæsalpinus have been taken up with enthusiasm,
not to say bitterness, in Italy; and in 1876 his statue was erected
with much pomp and speechmaking in Rome, and an inscription placed
upon it recording that he was the first discoverer of the circulation
of the blood. It is much to be regretted that this display was not
altogether free from a desire to depreciate Harvey. Wonder may well
be expressed at this procedure, even after allowing for well-meant
patriotic ardour, when it is learnt that in his works Cæsalpinus
speaks of the arteries ending in nerves, of the septum of the heart
being permeable, and its valves acting imperfectly, and of the veins
carrying blood to the body for its nourishment. The statements made
by Cæsalpinus, which at first sight point to his knowledge of the
circulation, are altogether discounted on perusal of his works, and
it becomes impossible to believe that he had any clear idea of the
circulation as we understand it to-day. The misconception has no doubt
arisen from the interpretation of isolated passages in the light of
what we now know regarding the circulation. Moreover, it is impossible
to believe, seeing how well the works of Cæsalpinus were known, that,
had he ever been regarded as putting forward in them the doctrine of
the circulation as we now understand it, such a new and startling view
would not have attracted the attention of the distinguished anatomists
who were his contemporaries or immediate successors. But that none of
them ever for a moment saw any such doctrine in the works of Cæsalpinus
is shown by their writings, and by the surprise with which Harvey’s
discovery was received.
[8] Quæstiones Peripateticæ, 1569. De Plantis, 1583.
Even Shakespeare has been cited as being acquainted with the
circulation of the blood, because he refers to its movement. This only
illustrates the confusion which has often been made of movement with
circulation. From the earliest times it had been believed there was
movement of the blood, but there was no clear or correct idea as to
the nature of the movement. The view may be ventured that another
confusion is responsible for a good deal that has been said about
Harvey having been forestalled in the discovery. It is confusing the
passage through the lungs of _some_ blood with the _whole mass_ of
it. It is difficult to believe, on taking a broad view of all their
statements on the subject, that any of Harvey’s predecessors realised
that the whole mass of the blood was continually passing through the
lungs. Had they done so it is further difficult to see how the systemic
circulation should have escaped them. But of this they certainly had no
idea.
We may admit all this previous knowledge without its detracting from
the greatness and merit of Harvey’s work. Although the same anatomical
facts, and even a glimmering of the Pulmonary Circulation may have been
present to the minds of his predecessors or contemporaries, yet the
genius, the spark of originality by which was discovered the proper
relation to one another of the former, the true significance and
meaning of the latter, belongs to Harvey and to him alone.
As was said by one of the best informed minds[9] of the eighteenth
century: “It is not to Cæsalpinus, because of some words of doubtful
meaning, but to Harvey, the able writer, the laborious contriver
of so many experiments, the staid propounder of all the arguments
available in his day, that the immortal glory of having discovered the
Circulation of the Blood is to be assigned.”
[9] Haller, Elementa Physiologiæ, vol. i. lib. iii., 1757.
William Harvey was born on April 1, in the year 1578, at Folkestone,
the eldest of seven sons of a well-to-do Kentish yeoman. When ten years
old he was sent to the Grammar School at Canterbury, and remained there
until he was fifteen. He then proceeded to Caius College, Cambridge,
where after three years’ residence he took the usual degree. Desiring
to enter the medical profession, he adopted a course, not unusual
at that time, of going abroad to study at a Continental University,
a course due to the absence of scientific teaching in the English
Universities on the one hand, and to its excellence in those of the
Continent on the other. Consequently, in the year 1597, when nineteen
years of age, Harvey directed his steps towards Padua, then famous
throughout Europe for its medical school, and especially for its school
of anatomy. Earlier in the century the chair of Anatomy had been filled
by Vesalius; it was now occupied by another celebrated anatomist,
known as Fabricius of Aquapendente. Harvey enjoyed the advantage of
studying anatomy under this great teacher, and the visitor to Padua
to-day can see the little anatomical theatre with its carved desks,
over one of which, no doubt, our illustrious discoverer leant with
eager attention whilst Fabricius demonstrated on the body below. We
can see the professor with pride explaining to his pupils the valves
in the veins which he had discovered, yet not appreciating their
meaning and importance; that was to be done a few years hence by the
young student listening above. It is very interesting to learn that
at this time Galileo was also a professor at Padua, and was lecturing
with such success that students flocked to hear him from all parts
of Europe. Surely it is difficult to imagine any seat of learning
more distinguished and attractive than the University of Padua must
have been during the five years Harvey spent there. At the end of
this time he received his degree of doctor, the diploma for which is
couched in the most eulogistic language, showing how by his studies and
abilities he had attracted the attention and earned the commendation
of the distinguished professors who then held the chairs of Anatomy,
Medicine, and Surgery in the University. He now returned to England,
and was granted the degree of Doctor of Medicine by the University of
Cambridge.
Soon after, Harvey settled in London and began to practise. In 1607
he was elected a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and in
1615 was appointed Lecturer in Anatomy to that ancient and important
foundation. In 1609 he had been elected physician to St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital.
In 1616, the year Shakespeare died, Harvey probably began in his
classes to teach that doctrine which has immortalised his name. He
began to show his pupils, and whoever else desired to be present,
from dissections of the human body and of animals, and by experiment
when necessary, the true office of the heart, the true course of the
movement of the blood in the body. This he continued to do for more
than ten years, listening patiently to objections, indeed inviting
criticisms so that the complete truth might be discovered free from
any falsities or misconceptions. At last, upon the earnest entreaties
of his most distinguished medical friends, he was persuaded to publish
his discovery to the world. These facts are of interest in throwing
some light on Harvey’s character. A discoverer who waits years before
publishing what he is firmly convinced in his own mind is a new idea,
not to say a great discovery, must be possessed of that calmness
of mind and abnegation of self which we associate with the true
philosopher. A discoverer who employs so long an interval to give
opportunity for criticism, and to deal with objections, must indeed be
wedded to truth.
This devotion to truth, however, had its reward, for it resulted in
one of the most remarkable scientific treatises ever written. When, in
1628, Harvey published at Frankfort-on-Main, his book on “The Movement
of the Heart and Blood,” he gave his reasons for believing the blood to
circulate, and explained the use of the heart in language so simple,
so clear, so exact, that now, nearly three hundred years afterwards,
the most accomplished physiologist can hardly improve on it. This
assuredly is a fact almost unique in the history of science.
And yet with all this the fact remains that Harvey never really knew,
from the nature of the case could not know, how the blood passed from
the arteries to the veins--how, in other words, an essential part
of the circulation was actually accomplished. The blood passes from
the arteries to the veins through minute microscopic tubes termed
capillaries. In Harvey’s day the microscope was not sufficiently
powerful to reveal such fine structures to human vision, and he was
therefore necessarily ignorant of their existence. Looked at from this
point of view, the discovery affords a very good example of what has
been aptly termed the scientific use of the imagination. Although, with
his imperfect microscope, it was impossible for him to know how the
blood actually passed from the arteries to the veins, yet as the result
of his observations and experiments he was able to infer and to state
the grounds for his inference in clear, forcible, and most convincing
language, that the blood must circulate, and circulate in one direction
only, viz. from the heart into the arteries, thence to the veins, by
which it was brought back to the heart again. His imagination was thus
enabled to bridge over the gulf between the arteries and veins which
his eyes, with the imperfect instrument then alone at his disposal,
were quite unable to cross. It was not until four years after Harvey’s
death that the microscope had been sufficiently improved to enable an
Italian anatomist named Malpighi,[10] in the year 1661, to actually
observe the capillaries uniting by their networks arteries and veins.
[10] De Pulmonibus, Observationes Anatomici, 1663.
The work was published at Frankfort doubtless that it might be more
easily disseminated over the Continent. It made a sensation among
the learned of all countries. Its conclusions were opposed by the
older physicians; but by the younger scientific men it was by no
means received with disfavour. Amongst the latter was the philosopher
Descartes, whose name was then a power in Europe. The philosophical,
yet keenly practical mind of Descartes grasped the discovery with
avidity and supported it with ardour. In his celebrated “Discours de la
Méthode,”[11] he refers to the discovery of “an English physician,” and
describes with enthusiasm the anatomy and use of the heart. Although
we have no certain information on the point it is quite possible that
Descartes may have known Harvey, for in the year 1631 he is said to
have paid a visit to England; and in his second reply to Riolan Harvey
refers to “the ingenious and acute Descartes,” and says the honourable
mention of his name demands his acknowledgments. Thus the discovery
became widely known and largely adopted.
[11] First published at Leyden in 4to, 1637.
One result of the publication of his discovery was only in keeping with
the experience of many great and original minds before and after his
time. In the things of this world his discovery was of little service
to him. His practice fell off. Patients feared to put themselves
under the care of one who was accused by his envious detractors of
being crack-brained, and of putting forward new-fangled and dangerous
doctrines. One who knew Harvey writes as follows: “I have heard him
say that after his booke of the Circulation of the Blood came out he
fell mightily in his practice, and ’twas believed by the vulgar that
he was crack-brained, and all the physitians were against him, with
much adoe at last in about 20 or 30 years time it was received in all
the universities in the world, and as Mr. Hobbs says in his book ‘De
Corpore,’ he is the only man perhaps that ever lived to see his own
doctrine established in his lifetime.”[12]
[12] John Aubrey, “Lives and Letters of Eminent Persons,” London,
1813.
There was one striking exception to this treatment. The King, Charles
I., not only appointed Harvey his physician, but showed the liveliest
interest in his discovery. Harvey explained his new doctrine on the
body before the King. Whatever opinions may be held regarding the
moral and political character of that unfortunate monarch, it must be
admitted that in aiding and befriending Vandyke and Harvey he showed
himself an enlightened patron of both art and science. Harvey continued
the King’s physician, and held this position when, in 1641, Charles
declared war against the Parliament. It is here curious to learn that
although openly declared enemies the Parliament was still mindful
of the King’s person, for not only with their consent, but by their
desire, Harvey remained his physician.[13] Notwithstanding his intimate
connection with the Court, Harvey appears to have taken no active part
in the great political struggle now taking place. The little solicitude
he had for it is shown by an anecdote told of him at the first battle
of the Civil War. “When King Charles,” says a contemporary author,[14]
“by reason of the tumults left London, Harvey attended him, and was
at the fight of Edgehill with him: and during the fight the Prince
and the Duke of York were committed to his care. He told me that he
withdrew with them under a hedge, and tooke out of his pocket a booke
and read. But he had not read very long before a bullet of a great gun
grazed on the ground near him, which made him remove his station.”
This anecdote well illustrates Harvey’s calm and peaceful character.
This was also shown by the restrained and dignified manner in which he
treated the many writers who attacked him, sometimes in anything but
choice language, after the publication of his great discovery. Anything
like controversy for controversy’s sake was wholly foreign to his
nature. “To return evil speaking with evil speaking,” he remarks in a
reply to one of his critics, “I hold to be unworthy of a philosopher
and a searcher after truth. I believe I shall do better and more
advisedly if I meet so many indications of ill breeding with the light
of faithful and conclusive observation.”[15] To many of the attacks
made on his discovery or on himself, he therefore did not condescend
to reply. And when from the eminence of his opponents he felt called
upon to do so, he replied with the utmost courtesy and kindliness. But
whilst admitting the high claims to distinction on other grounds of
his antagonist, he proceeded on this particular question to utterly
demolish him with clear facts and stern irrefutable arguments and
experiments. He called upon his opponents to observe the facts and
make the experiments for themselves, instead of citing the opinions
of authors centuries old, or making long discourses on spirits,
fuliginous vapours, and the tides of Euripus. This is well illustrated
in his replies to Riolan. The arguments of Riolan would hardly seem
to have entitled him to the honour of the special notice of the great
discoverer. But probably his position as Anatomist in the University
of Paris, and of physician to the Queen-Mother, Marie de Medicis, made
Harvey pick out his criticisms as a suitable excuse for replying to his
opponents. Harvey’s mode of argument is well shown by the following
admirable remarks on the Manner and Order of Acquiring Knowledge, in
his introduction to the work on “The Generation of Animals”: “Sensible
things are of themselves and antecedent; things of intellect however
are consequential and arise from the former, and indeed we can in
no way attain to them without the help of the others. And hence it
is that without the due admonition of the senses, without frequent
observation and reiterated experiment, our mind goes astray after
phantoms and appearances. Diligent observation is therefore requisite
in every science, and the senses are to be frequently appealed to.
We are, I say, to strive after personal experience, not to rely on
the experience of others: without which indeed no one can properly
become a student of any branch of natural science.” Referring to his
own particular work he says: “I would not have you therefore, gentle
reader, to take anything on trust from me concerning the Generation
of Animals: I appeal to your own eyes as my witness and judge. For as
all true science rests upon those principles which have their origin
in the operation of the senses, particular care is to be taken that
by repeated dissection the grounds of our present subject be fully
established.... The method of investigating truth commonly pursued at
this time therefore is to be held erroneous and almost foolish, in
which so many inquire what others have said, and omit to ask whether
the things themselves be actually so or not.”
[13] De Generatione Ex. lxviii.
[14] Aubrey, _loc. cit._
[15] _Vide_ Second Reply to Riolan, p. 133 post.
When the King made Oxford his headquarters, Harvey was with him,
and was appointed head of Merton College. But in 1646, on Oxford
surrendering to the Parliamentary forces, he gave up his wardenship
and quitted the city. Having no call to take an active part in the
political contest, and now verging on threescore-and-ten, he retired
from his position of physician to the King and went to London, where
he was hospitably entertained in the houses of his brothers, who were
wealthy merchants in the City. Here he no doubt once again devoted
himself to scientific observation, the nature of which became evident,
when in 1651 he was persuaded, somewhat against his own inclination,
by his friend, Dr. George Ent, to allow the publication of his book
on “The Generation of Animals.” In this work he appears as a pioneer
in the difficult science of Embryology, working under most adverse
conditions, for he had no microscope worthy of the name. Whilst,
therefore, of no great value in the light of our present knowledge, it
is a monument of the author’s industry and of his enthusiastic devotion
to physiological research. It contains a great number of acute and
interesting observations; and he had evidently made many more, for
he says that his papers on the Generation of Insects were lost as a
result of the tumults which arose at the outbreak of the Civil War.
He told Aubrey that no grief was so crucifying to him as the loss
of these papers. The King took a direct personal interest in these
investigations,[16] and supplied him with deer from the Royal Parks in
order to further them.
[16] De Generatione Ex. lxix
In two respects the work on Generation is worthy of more than a
mere passing notice, and entitles its author to the possession of
almost prophetic genius. The first is the enunciation of the great
generalisation _omne vivum ex ovo_. Although this particular phrase is
nowhere to be found, as is often erroneously stated, in the treatise on
Generation, yet a perusal of Exercises I., LI., and LXII. will convince
any one that Harvey had grasped this great idea, which has since been
so abundantly verified. The other is his doctrine of _Epigenesis_, or
the formation of the new organism from the homogeneous substance of the
germ by the successive differentiation of parts, that all parts are not
formed at once and together, but in succession one after the other. He
put forward this doctrine of Epigenesis in contradistinction to that of
_Metamorphosis_, according to which the germ was suddenly transformed
into a miniature of the whole organism which subsequently grew. This
is certainly very remarkable, and entitles him to be regarded as a
forerunner of Caspar Wolff, Von Baer, and the modern Evolutionary
School, which sees in the development of the organism from the ovum a
passage from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous by a gradual process
of differentiation, from a germ in which there is no sign of any of the
parts of the adult to an organism with all its many and varied organs.
Commenting on certain passages of Exercise XLV., in which Harvey
specially refers to this subject, the late Professor Huxley remarked:
“In these words, by the divination of genius, Harvey in the seventeenth
century summarised the outcome of the work of all those who, with
appliances he could not dream of, are continuing his labours in the
nineteenth century.”[17]
[17] Evolution: “Encyclopædia Britannica,” 9th ed. 1878.
In addition to his long sojourn in Italy as a student, Harvey made
several other visits to the Continent. In 1630 he consented to
accompany the young Duke of Lennox in his travels abroad. He had
returned by 1632, for in that year he was formally appointed physician
to Charles I. Again, in 1636 he accompanied the Earl of Arundel on his
embassy to the Emperor, and was absent some nine months. According to
Aubrey, in 1649 Harvey, with his friend Dr. George Ent, again visited
Italy. Some doubt has been thrown on this journey, but it receives
support from a letter of Harvey’s to John Nardi, of Florence, written
on November 30, 1653, in which he concludes by asking his correspondent
to mention his name to his Serene Highness the Duke of Tuscany, “with
thankfulness for the distinguished honour he did me when I was formerly
in Florence.”
In his old age Harvey was honoured in a striking manner by those
best fitted to judge of the merit and value of his life’s work. His
statue was erected in the hall of the College of Physicians. As an
acknowledgment, as it were, of this remarkable compliment, he built at
his own expense a Convocation Hall and a Library as additions to the
College, and contributed books, curiosities, and surgical instruments
for the Library and Museum. Not content with this, he made over to the
College, the year before he died, his paternal estate, stipulating
that a certain sum out of it should be employed every year for the
delivery of an Oration in commemoration of benefactors of the College,
and of those who had added anything to medical knowledge during the
year. This Oration is annually delivered by some distinguished member
of the medical profession, and is inseparably associated with the name
of Harvey. This graceful act shows how in his declining years Harvey’s
thoughts were turned to the future. It had for its object to further
the progress of scientific knowledge, to stimulate studies in the
pursuit of which he had shown himself such a master. He wished when old
and infirm, bereft of the power of again entering the arena of active
work and investigation, to still do something to increase and extend
that knowledge which is of so great service to mankind--a knowledge of
the human body in health and in disease.
Harvey died on June 3, in the year 1657, in the eightieth year of his
age, and was buried at the village of Hempstead, in Essex, in a vault
which had been built by his brother Eliab.
E. A. PARKYN.
LONDON, _November, 1906_.
The following is a list of Harvey’s works, and of the more important
references to his life and discovery:--
“MS. Memorandum Book,” dated 1616, entitled “Prælectiones Anatomicæ
Universalis.” It is in Harvey’s handwriting, and contains the
origin of the Circulation. (In the British Museum.) A Facsimile was
published in 1886 by the College of Physicians.
“MS. De Musculis,” 1627, in Harvey’s handwriting. (Brit.
Mus.) A Notice on this manuscript was published in 1850 by
G. E. Paget, M.D.
“MS. of Prescriptions,” 1647. (Brit. Mus.)
“MS. Diploma of Doctor of Medicine” to Harvey by University of Padua,
April 25, 1602. (In the College of Physicians.)
“MS. Illuminated Grant of M.D.,” by University of Padua to an
Englishman, Thomas Heron, which is witnessed by “Guigliomo Harveo
Consiliaris Magnificæ Nationis Anglæ.” It is dated March 19, 1602.
(Brit. Mus.)
“MS. Oratio Harveiana,” 1661, ab. E. Greaves. (Brit. Mus.)
“De Motu Cordis et Sanguinis,” Frankfort-on-Main, 1628. First English
edition published by R. Lowndes, with preface by Zachariah Wood,
Physician of Rotterdam, 1653.
“Anatomical Examination of the Body of Thomas Parr, aged 152 years,”
made in 1635, but not published until 1669 in Betts’ “De Ortu et
Natura Sanguinis.”
“Two Disquisitions in Reply to John Riolan, jun.,” 1649.
“De Generatione Animalium,” London, 1651; in English, 1653.
* * * * *
“Biographica Britannica,” 1750. The Life of Harvey, containing much
curious information and discussion, is evidently that on which all
subsequent biographies are based.
“Harveii Opera Omnia,” edited by Dr. Akenside, with Life by Thomas
Lawrence, M.D., 1766.
“Lives and Letters of Eminent Persons,” by John Aubrey, 1813.
“Records of William Harvey, with Notes,” by James Paget, of St.
Bartholomew’s Hospital, 1846.
“The Works of William Harvey,” translated by Robert Willis, M.D.
(Sydenham Society, 1848). This excellent translation has been
followed in the present volume.
“Histoire de la Découverte de la Circulation du Sang,” par
M. J. P. Flourens, 1854.
“Circulation of the Blood: its History, Cause, and Course,” by
G. H. Lewes in “Physiology of Common Life,” 1859.
“Memorials of Harvey,” collected by J. H. Aveling, 1875.
“William Harvey: a history, etc.,” by Robert Willis, M.D., 1878.
“Roll of the Royal College of Physicians,” by William Munk, M.D., 2nd
ed., 1878.
Huxley on “Evolution,” in “Encyclopædia Britannica,” 9th ed., 1878.
“Experimental Physiology,” by Sir R. Owen, 1882.
“A Defence of Harvey,” by George Johnson, M.D., 1884.
“Masters of Medicine: William Harvey,” by D’Arcy Power 1897.
NOTE
In the present edition of Harvey’s Treatise on the Circulation of the
Blood, which is reprinted from the Sydenham Society’s edition of 1847,
the footnotes by Willis, the editor and translator of that edition, are
distinguished by brackets from Harvey’s original notes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AN ANATOMICAL DISQUISITION ON THE
MOTION OF THE HEART AND BLOOD IN
ANIMALS
PAGE
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION vii
DEDICATION 3
INTRODUCTION 9
CHAP.
I. THE AUTHOR’S MOTIVES FOR WRITING 22
II. OF THE MOTIONS OF THE HEART, AS SEEN IN THE DISSECTION OF
LIVING ANIMALS 24
III. OF THE MOTIONS OF ARTERIES, AS SEEN IN THE DISSECTION OF
LIVING ANIMALS 28
IV. OF THE MOTION OF THE HEART AND ITS AURICLES, AS SEEN IN THE
BODIES OF LIVING ANIMALS 31
V. OF THE MOTION, ACTION, AND OFFICE OF THE HEART 37
VI. OF THE COURSE BY WHICH THE BLOOD IS CARRIED FROM THE VENA
CAVA INTO THE ARTERIES, OR FROM THE RIGHT INTO THE LEFT
VENTRICLE OF THE HEART 42
VII. THE BLOOD PERCOLATES THE SUBSTANCE OF THE LUNGS FROM THE
RIGHT VENTRICLE OF THE HEART INTO THE PULMONARY VEINS
AND LEFT VENTRICLE 49
VIII. OF THE QUANTITY OF BLOOD PASSING THROUGH THE HEART FROM
THE VEINS TO THE ARTERIES; AND OF THE CIRCULAR MOTION
OF THE BLOOD 55
IX. THAT THERE IS A CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD IS CONFIRMED FROM
THE FIRST PROPOSITION 58
X. THE FIRST POSITION: OF THE QUANTITY OF BLOOD PASSING FROM
THE VEINS TO THE ARTERIES. AND THAT THERE IS A CIRCUIT OF
THE BLOOD, FREED FROM OBJECTIONS, AND FARTHER CONFIRMED
BY EXPERIMENT 64
XI. THE SECOND POSITION IS DEMONSTRATED 67
XII. THAT THERE IS A CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD IS SHOWN FROM THE
SECOND POSITION DEMONSTRATED 75
XIII. THE THIRD POSITION IS CONFIRMED: AND THE CIRCULATION OF
THE BLOOD IS DEMONSTRATED FROM IT 78
XIV. CONCLUSION OF THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE CIRCULATION 85
XV. THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD IS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY
PROBABLE REASONS 86
XVI. THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD IS FURTHER PROVED FROM
CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES 90
XVII. THE MOTION AND CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD ARE CONFIRMED
FROM THE PARTICULARS APPARENT IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE
HEART, AND FROM THOSE THINGS WHICH DISSECTION UNFOLDS 96
THE FIRST ANATOMICAL DISQUISITION ON THE CIRCULATION OF THE
BLOOD, ADDRESSED TO JOHN RIOLAN 111
A SECOND DISQUISITION TO JOHN RIOLAN; IN WHICH MANY OBJECTIONS
TO THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD ARE REFUTED 131
LETTERS
TO CASPAR HOFMANN, M.D. 175
TO PAUL MARQUARD SLEGEL, OF HAMBURG 176
TO THE VERY EXCELLENT JOHN NARDI, OF FLORENCE 184
IN REPLY TO R. MORISON, M.D., OF PARIS 185
TO THE MOST EXCELLENT AND LEARNED JOHN NARDI, OF FLORENCE 193
TO JOHN DANIEL HORST, PRINCIPAL PHYSICIAN OF HESSE-DARMSTADT 195
TO THE DISTINGUISHED AND LEARNED JOHN DAN. HORST, PRINCIPAL
PHYSICIAN AT THE COURT OF HESSE-DARMSTADT 197
TO THE VERY LEARNED JOHN NARDI, OF FLORENCE, A MAN DISTINGUISHED
ALIKE FOR HIS VIRTUES, LIFE, AND ERUDITION 199
TO THE DISTINGUISHED AND ACCOMPLISHED JOHN VLACKVELD, PHYSICIAN
AT HARLEM 200
APPENDIX
THE ANATOMICAL EXAMINATION OF THE BODY OF THOMAS PARR, WHO
DIED AT THE AGE OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-TWO YEARS;
MADE BY WILLIAM HARVEY 205
THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF WILLIAM HARVEY, M.D. 212
INDEX 223
AN ANATOMICAL DISQUISITION
ON THE
MOTION OF THE HEART AND BLOOD IN ANIMALS
TO
THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS AND INDOMITABLE PRINCE
CHARLES
KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH
MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCE!
The heart of animals is the foundation of their life, the sovereign
of everything within them, the sun of their microcosm, that upon
which all growth depends, from which all power proceeds. The King, in
like manner, is the foundation of his kingdom, the sun of the world
around him, the heart of the republic, the fountain whence all power,
all grace doth flow. What I have here written of the motions of the
heart I am the more emboldened to present to your Majesty, according
to the custom of the present age, because almost all things human are
done after human examples, and many things in a King are after the
pattern of the heart. The knowledge of his heart, therefore, will not
be useless to a Prince, as embracing a kind of Divine example of his
functions,--and it has still been usual with men to compare small
things with great. Here, at all events, best of Princes, placed as you
are on the pinnacle of human affairs, you may at once contemplate the
prime mover in the body of man, and the emblem of your own sovereign
power. Accept therefore, with your wonted clemency, I most humbly
beseech you, illustrious Prince, this, my new Treatise on the Heart;
you, who are yourself the new light of this age, and indeed its very
heart; a Prince abounding in virtue and in grace, and to whom we gladly
refer all the blessings which England enjoys, all the pleasure we have
in our lives.
Your Majesty’s most devoted servant,
WILLIAM HARVEY.
LONDON, 1628.
To his very dear Friend, DOCTOR ARGENT, the excellent and
accomplished President of the Royal College of Physicians, and to
other learned Physicians, his most esteemed Colleagues.
I have already and repeatedly presented you, my learned friends, with
my new views of the motion and function of the heart, in my anatomical
lectures; but having now for nine years and more confirmed these views
by multiplied demonstrations in your presence, illustrated them by
arguments, and freed them from the objections of the most learned and
skilful anatomists, I at length yield to the requests, I might say
entreaties, of many, and here present them for general consideration in
this treatise.
Were not the work indeed presented through you, my learned friends,
I should scarce hope that it could come out scatheless and complete;
for you have in general been the faithful witnesses of almost all the
instances from which I have either collected the truth or confuted
error; you have seen my dissections, and at my demonstrations of all
that I maintain to be objects of sense, you have been accustomed to
stand by and bear me out with your testimony. And as this book alone
declares the blood to course and revolve by a new route, very different
from the ancient and beaten pathway trodden for so many ages, and
illustrated by such a host of learned and distinguished men, I was
greatly afraid lest I might be charged with presumption did I lay my
work before the public at home, or send it beyond seas for impression,
unless I had first proposed its subject to you, had confirmed its
conclusions by ocular demonstrations in your presence, had replied
to your doubts and objections, and secured the assent and support of
our distinguished President. For I was most intimately persuaded,
that if I could make good my proposition before you and our College,
illustrious by its numerous body of learned individuals, I had less
to fear from others; I even ventured to hope that I should have the
comfort of finding all that you had granted me in your sheer love of
truth, conceded by others who were philosophers like yourselves. For
true philosophers, who are only eager for truth and knowledge, never
regard themselves as already so thoroughly informed, but that they
welcome further information from whomsoever and from whencesoever it
may come; nor are they so narrow-minded as to imagine any of the arts
or sciences transmitted to us by the ancients, in such a state of
forwardness or completeness, that nothing is left for the ingenuity and
industry of others; very many, on the contrary, maintain that all we
know is still infinitely less than all that still remains unknown; nor
do philosophers pin their faith to others’ precepts in such wise that
they lose their liberty, and cease to give credence to the conclusions
of their proper senses. Neither do they swear such fealty to their
mistress Antiquity, that they openly, and in sight of all, deny and
desert their friend Truth. But even as they see that the credulous
and vain are disposed at the first blush to accept and to believe
everything that is proposed to them, so do they observe that the dull
and unintellectual are indisposed to see what lies before their eyes,
and even to deny the light of the noonday sun. They teach us in our
course of philosophy as sedulously to avoid the fables of the poets and
the fancies of the vulgar, as the false conclusions of the sceptics.
And then the studious, and good, and true, never suffer their minds
to be warped by the passions of hatred and envy, which unfit men duly
to weigh the arguments that are advanced in behalf of truth, or to
appreciate the proposition that is even fairly demonstrated; neither
do they think it unworthy of them to change their opinion if truth
and undoubted demonstration require them so to do; nor do they esteem
it discreditable to desert error, though sanctioned by the highest
antiquity; for they know full well that to err, to be deceived, is
human; that many things are discovered by accident, and that many may
be learned indifferently from any quarter, by an old man from a youth,
by a person of understanding from one of inferior capacity.
My dear colleagues, I had no purpose to swell this treatise into a
large volume by quoting the names and writings of anatomists, or to
make a parade of the strength of my memory, the extent of my reading,
and the amount of my pains; because I profess both to learn and to
teach anatomy, not from books but from dissections; not from the
positions of philosophers but from the fabric of nature; and then
because I do not think it right or proper to strive to take from the
ancients any honour that is their due, nor yet to dispute with the
moderns, and enter into controversy with those who have excelled in
anatomy and been my teachers, I would not charge with wilful falsehood
any one who was sincerely anxious for truth, nor lay it to any one’s
door as a crime that he had fallen into error. I avow myself the
partisan of truth alone; and I can indeed say that I have used all my
endeavours, bestowed all my pains on an attempt to produce something
that should be agreeable to the good, profitable to the learned, and
useful to letters.
Farewell, most worthy Doctors,
And think kindly of your Anatomist,
WILLIAM HARVEY.
AN ANATOMICAL DISQUISITION
ON THE
MOTION OF THE HEART AND BLOOD IN ANIMALS
INTRODUCTION
As we are about to discuss the motion, action, and use of the heart
and arteries, it is imperative on us first to state what has been
thought of these things by others in their writings, and what has been
held by the vulgar and by tradition, in order that what is true may
be confirmed, and what is false set right by dissection, multiplied
experience, and accurate observation.
Almost all anatomists, physicians, and philosophers, up to the present
time, have supposed, with Galen, that the object of the pulse was the
same as that of respiration, and only differed in one particular,
this being conceived to depend on the animal, the respiration on the
vital faculty; the two, in all other respects, whether with reference
to purpose or to motion, comporting themselves alike. Whence it is
affirmed, as by Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente, in his book
on “Respiration,” which has lately appeared, that as the pulsation
of the heart and arteries does not suffice for the ventilation and
refrigeration of the blood, therefore were the lungs fashioned to
surround the heart. From this it appears, that whatever has hitherto
been said upon the systole and diastole, on the motion of the heart
and arteries, has been said with especial reference to the lungs.
But as the structure and movements of the heart differ from those of
the lungs, and the motions of the arteries from those of the chest, so
seems it likely that other ends and offices will thence arise, and that
the pulsations and uses of the heart, likewise of the arteries, will
differ in many respects from the heavings and uses of the chest and
lungs. For did the arterial pulse and the respiration serve the same
ends; did the arteries in their diastole take air into their cavities,
as commonly stated, and in their systole emit fuliginous vapours by
the same pores of the flesh and skin; and further, did they, in the
time intermediate between the diastole and the systole, contain air,
and at all times either air, or spirits, or fuliginous vapours, what
should then be said to Galen, who wrote a book on purpose to show
that by nature the arteries contained blood, and nothing but blood;
neither spirits nor air, consequently, as may be readily gathered from
the experiments and reasonings contained in the same book? Now if the
arteries are filled in the diastole with air then taken into them (a
larger quantity of air penetrating when the pulse is large and full),
it must come to pass, that if you plunge into a bath of water or of
oil when the pulse is strong and full, it ought forthwith to become
either smaller or much slower, since the circumambient bath will render
it either difficult or impossible for the air to penetrate. In like
manner, as all the arteries, those that are deep-seated as well as
those that are superficial, are dilated at the same instant, and with
the same rapidity, how were it possible that air should penetrate to
the deeper parts as freely and quickly through the skin, flesh, and
other structures, as through the mere cuticle? And how should the
arteries of the fœtus draw air into their cavities through the abdomen
of the mother and the body of the womb? And how should seals, whales,
dolphins, and other cetaceans, and fishes of every description, living
in the depths of the sea, take in and emit air by the diastole and
systole of their arteries through the infinite mass of waters? For to
say that they absorb the air that is infixed in the water, and emit
their fumes into this medium, were to utter something very like a mere
figment. And if the arteries in their systole expel fuliginous vapours
from their cavities through the pores of the flesh and skin, why not
the spirits, which are said to be contained in these vessels, at the
same time, since spirits are much more subtile than fuliginous vapours
or smoke? And further, if the arteries take in and cast out air in the
systole and diastole, like the lungs in the process of respiration,
wherefore do they not do the same thing when a wound is made in one of
them, as is done in the operation of arteriotomy? When the windpipe is
divided, it is sufficiently obvious that the air enters and returns
through the wound by two opposite movements; but when an artery is
divided, it is equally manifest that blood escapes in one continuous
stream, and that no air either enters or issues. If the pulsations
of the arteries fan and refrigerate the several parts of the body as
the lungs do the heart, how comes it, as is commonly said, that the
arteries carry the vital blood into the different parts, abundantly
charged with vital spirits, which cherish the heat of these parts,
sustain them when asleep, and recruit them when exhausted? and how
should it happen that, if you tie the arteries, immediately the parts
not only become torpid, and frigid, and look pale, but at length cease
even to be nourished? This, according to Galen, is because they are
deprived of the heat which flowed through all parts from the heart,
as its source; whence it would appear that the arteries rather carry
warmth to the parts than serve for any fanning or refrigeration.
Besides, how can the diastole [of the arteries] draw spirits from the
heart to warm the body and its parts, and, from without, means of
cooling or tempering them? Still further, although some affirm that
the lungs, arteries, and heart have all the same offices, they yet
maintain that the heart is the workshop of the spirits, and that the
arteries contain and transmit them; denying, however, in opposition
to the opinion of Columbus, that the lungs can either make or contain
spirits; and then they assert, with Galen, against Erasistratus, that
it is blood, not spirits, which is contained in the arteries.
These various opinions are seen to be so incongruous and mutually
subversive, that every one of them is not unjustly brought under
suspicion. That it is blood and blood alone which is contained in the
arteries is made manifest by the experiment of Galen, by arteriotomy,
and by wounds; for from a single artery divided, as Galen himself
affirms in more than one place, the whole of the blood may be withdrawn
in the course of half an hour, or less. The experiment of Galen
alluded to is this: “If you include a portion of an artery between
two ligatures, and slit it open lengthways, you will find nothing but
blood;” and thus he proves that the arteries contain blood only. And
we too may be permitted to proceed by a like train of reasoning: if we
find the same blood in the arteries that we find in the veins, which
we have tied in the same way, as I have myself repeatedly ascertained,
both in the dead body and in living animals, we may fairly conclude
that the arteries contain the same blood as the veins, and nothing but
the same blood. Some, whilst they attempt to lessen the difficulty
here, affirming that the blood is spirituous and arterious, virtually
concede that the office of the arteries is to carry blood from the
heart into the whole of the body, and that they are therefore filled
with blood; for spirituous blood is not the less blood on that account.
And then no one denies that the blood as such, even the portion of it
which flows in the veins, is imbued with spirits. But if that portion
which is contained in the arteries be richer in spirits, it is still
to be believed that these spirits are inseparable from the blood, like
those in the veins: that the blood and spirits constitute one body
(like whey and butter in milk, or heat [and water] in hot water), with
which the arteries are charged, and for the distribution of which from
the heart they are provided, and that this body is nothing else than
blood. But if this blood be said to be drawn from the heart into the
arteries by the diastole of these vessels, it is then assumed that the
arteries by their distension are filled with blood, and not with the
ambient air, as heretofore; for if they be said also to become filled
with air from the ambient atmosphere, how and when, I ask, can they
receive blood from the heart? If it be answered: during the systole; I
say, that seems impossible; the arteries would then have to fill whilst
they contracted; in other words, to fill, and yet not become distended.
But if it be said: during the diastole, they would then, and for two
opposite purposes, be receiving both blood and air, and heat and cold;
which is improbable. Further, when it is affirmed that the diastole of
the heart and arteries is simultaneous, and the systole of the two is
also concurrent, there is another incongruity. For how can two bodies
mutually connected, which are simultaneously distended, attract or
draw anything from one another; or, being simultaneously contracted,
receive anything from each other? And then, it seems impossible that
one body can thus attract another body into itself, so as to become
distended, seeing that to be distended is to be passive, unless, in the
manner of a sponge, previously compressed by an external force, whilst
it is returning to its natural state. But it is difficult to conceive
that there can be anything of this kind in the arteries. The arteries
dilate, because they are filled like bladders or leathern bottles; they
are not filled because they expand like bellows. This I think easy
of demonstration; and indeed conceive that I have already proved it.
Nevertheless, in that book of Galen headed “Quod Sanguis continetur in
Arteriis,” he quotes an experiment to prove the contrary: An artery
having been exposed, is opened longitudinally, and a reed or other
pervious tube, by which the blood is prevented from being lost, and the
wound is closed, is inserted into the vessel through the opening. “So
long,” he says, “as things are thus arranged, the whole artery will
pulsate; but if you now throw a ligature about the vessel and tightly
compress its tunics over the tube, you will no longer see the artery
beating beyond the ligature.” I have never performed this experiment
of Galen’s, nor do I think that it could very well be performed in the
living body, on account of the profuse flow of blood that would take
place from the vessel which was operated on; neither would the tube
effectually close the wound in the vessel without a ligature; and I
cannot doubt but that the blood would be found to flow out between the
tube and the vessel. Still Galen appears by this experiment to prove
both that the pulsative faculty extends from the heart by the walls of
the arteries, and that the arteries, whilst they dilate, are filled
by that pulsific force, because they expand like bellows, and do not
dilate because they are filled like skins. But the contrary is obvious
in arteriotomy and in wounds; for the blood spurting from the arteries
escapes with force, now farther, now not so far, alternately, or in
jets; and the jet always takes place with the diastole of the artery,
never with the systole. By which it clearly appears that the artery is
dilated by the impulse of the blood; for of itself it would not throw
the blood to such a distance, and whilst it was dilating; it ought
rather to draw air into its cavity through the wound, were those things
true that are commonly stated concerning the uses of the arteries. Nor
let the thickness of the arterial tunics impose upon us, and lead us
to conclude that the pulsative property proceeds along them from the
heart. For in several animals the arteries do not apparently differ
from the veins; and in extreme parts of the body, where the arteries
are minutely subdivided, as in the brain, the hand, &c., no one could
distinguish the arteries from the veins by the dissimilar characters of
their coats; the tunics of both are identical. And then, in an aneurism
proceeding from a wounded or eroded artery, the pulsation is precisely
the same as in the other arteries, and yet it has no proper arterial
tunic. This the learned Riolanus testifies to, along with me, in his
Seventh Book.
Nor let any one imagine that the uses of the pulse and the respiration
are the same, because under the influence of the same causes, such as
running, anger, the warm bath, or any other heating thing, as Galen
says, they become more frequent and forcible together. For, not only
is experience in opposition to this idea, though Galen endeavours to
explain it away, when we see that with excessive repletion the pulse
beats more forcibly, whilst the respiration is diminished in amount;
but in young persons the pulse is quick, whilst respiration is slow.
So is it also in alarm, and amidst care, and under anxiety of mind;
sometimes, too, in fevers, the pulse is rapid, but the respiration is
slower than usual.
These and other objections of the same kind may be urged against the
opinions mentioned. Nor are the views that are entertained of the
offices and pulse of the heart, perhaps, less bound up with great
and most inextricable difficulties. The heart, it is vulgarly said,
is the fountain and workshop of the vital spirits, the centre from
whence life is dispensed to the several parts of the body; and yet
it is denied that the right ventricle makes spirits; it is rather
held to supply nourishment to the lungs; whence it is maintained that
fishes are without any right ventricle (and indeed every animal wants
a right ventricle which is unfurnished with lungs), and that the right
ventricle is present solely for the sake of the lungs.
1. Why, I ask, when we see that the structure of both ventricles is
almost identical, there being the same apparatus of fibres, and
braces, and valves, and vessels, and auricles, and in both the same
infarction of blood, in the subjects of our dissections, of the like
black colour, and coagulated--why, I say, should their uses be imagined
to be different, when the action, motion, and pulse of both are the
same? If the three tricuspid valves placed at the entrance into the
right ventricle prove obstacles to the reflux of the blood into the
vena cava, and if the three semilunar valves which are situated at the
commencement of the pulmonary artery be there, that they may prevent
the return of the blood into the ventricle; wherefore, when we find
similar structures in connexion with the left ventricle, should we deny
that they are there for the same end, of preventing here the egress,
there the regurgitation of the blood?
2. And again, when we see that these structures, in point of size,
form, and situation, are almost in every respect the same in the left
as in the right ventricle, wherefore should it be maintained that
things are here arranged in connexion with the egress and regress of
spirits, there, i.e. in the right, of blood? The same arrangement
cannot be held fitted to favour or impede the motion of blood and of
spirits indifferently.
3. And when we observe that the passages and vessels are severally in
relation to one another in point of size, viz., the pulmonary artery to
the pulmonary veins; wherefore should the one be imagined destined to a
private or particular purpose, that, to wit, of nourishing the lungs,
the other to a public and general function?
4. And, as Realdus Columbus says, how can it be conceived that such a
quantity of blood should be required for the nutrition of the lungs;
the vessel that leads to them, the vena arteriosa or pulmonary artery
being of greater capacity than both the iliac veins?
5. And I ask further: as the lungs are so close at hand, and in
continual motion, and the vessel that supplies them is of such
dimensions, what is the use or meaning of the pulse of the right
ventricle? and why was nature reduced to the necessity of adding
another ventricle for the sole purpose of nourishing the lungs?
When it is said that the left ventricle obtains materials for the
formation of spirits, air to wit, and blood, from the lungs and right
sinuses of the heart, and in like manner sends spirituous blood into
the aorta, drawing fuliginous vapours from thence, and sending them
by the arteria venosa into the lungs, whence spirits are at the same
time obtained for transmission into the aorta, I ask how, and by what
means, is the separation effected? and how comes it that spirits and
fuliginous vapours can pass hither and thither without admixture or
confusion. If the mitral cuspidate valves do not prevent the egress of
fuliginous vapours to the lungs, how should they oppose the escape of
air? and how should the semilunars hinder the regress of spirits from
the aorta upon each supervening diastole of the heart? and, above all,
how can they say that the spirituous blood is sent from the arteria
venalis (pulmonary veins) by the left ventricle into the lungs without
any obstacle to its passage from the mitral valves, when they have
previously asserted that the air entered by the same vessel from the
lungs into the left ventricle, and have brought forward these same
mitral valves as obstacles to its retrogression? Good God! how should
the mitral valves prevent regurgitation of air and not of blood?
Further, when they dedicate the vena arteriosa (or pulmonary artery), a
vessel of great size, and having the tunics of an artery, to none but
a kind of private and single purpose, that, namely, of nourishing the
lungs, why should the arteria venalis (or pulmonary vein), which is
scarcely of similar size, which has the coats of a vein, and is soft
and lax, be presumed to be made for many--three or four, different
uses? For they will have it that air passes through this vessel from
the lungs into the left ventricle; that fuliginous vapours escape by
it from the heart into the lungs; and that a portion of the spirituous
or spiritualized blood is distributed by it to the lungs for their
refreshment.
If they will have it that fumes and air--fumes flowing from, air
proceeding towards the heart--are transmitted by the same conduit, I
reply, that nature is not wont to institute but one vessel, to contrive
but one way for such contrary motions and purposes, nor is anything of
the kind seen elsewhere.
If fumes or fuliginous vapours and air permeate this vessel, as they do
the pulmonary bronchia, wherefore do we find neither air nor fuliginous
vapours when we divide the arteria venosa? why do we always find this
vessel full of sluggish blood, never of air? whilst in the lungs we
find abundance of air remaining.
If any one will perform Galen’s experiment of dividing the trachea of
a living dog, forcibly distending the lungs with a pair of bellows,
and then tying the trachea securely, he will find, when he has laid
open the thorax, abundance of air in the lungs, even to their extreme
investing tunic, but none in either the pulmonary veins, or left
ventricle of the heart. But did the heart either attract air from the
lungs, or did the lungs transmit any air to the heart, in the living
dog, by so much the more ought this to be the case in the experiment
just referred to. Who, indeed, doubts that, did he inflate the lungs
of a subject in the dissecting-room, he would instantly see the air
making its way by this route, were there actually any such passage for
it? But this office of the pulmonary veins, namely, the transference
of air from the lungs to the heart, is held of such importance, that
Hieronymus Fabricius, of Aquapendente, maintains the lungs were made
for the sake of this vessel, and that it constitutes the principal
element in their structure.
But I should like to be informed wherefore, if the pulmonary vein
were destined for the conveyance of air, it has the structure of a
blood-vessel here. Nature had rather need of annular tubes, such as
those of the bronchia, in order that they might always remain open, not
have been liable to collapse; and that they might continue entirely
free from blood, lest the liquid should interfere with the passage
of the air, as it so obviously does when the lungs labour from being
either greatly oppressed or loaded in a less degree with phlegm, as
they are when the breathing is performed with a sibilous or rattling
noise.
Still less is that opinion to be tolerated which (as a twofold matter,
one aëreal, one sanguineous, is required for the composition of vital
spirits,) supposes the blood to ooze through the septum of the heart
from the right to the left ventricle by certain secret pores, and
the air to be attracted from the lungs through the great vessel, the
pulmonary vein; and which will have it, consequently, that there are
numerous pores in the septum cordis adapted for the transmission of
the blood. But, in faith, no such pores can be demonstrated, neither
in fact do any such exist. For the septum of the heart is of a denser
and more compact structure than any portion of the body, except the
bones and sinews. But even supposing that there were foramina or pores
in this situation, how could one of the ventricles extract anything
from the other--the left, e.g., obtain blood from the right, when we
see that both ventricles contract and dilate simultaneously? Wherefore
should we not rather believe that the right took spirits from the left,
than that the left obtained blood from the right ventricle, through
these foramina? But it is certainly mysterious and incongruous that
blood should be supposed to be most commodiously drawn through a set of
obscure or invisible pores, and air through perfectly open passages,
at one and the same moment. And why, I ask, is recourse had to secret
and invisible porosities, to uncertain and obscure channels, to explain
the passage of the blood into the left ventricle, when there is so
open a way through the pulmonary veins? I own it has always appeared
extraordinary to me that they should have chosen to make, or rather to
imagine, a way through the thick, hard, and extremely compact substance
of the septum cordis, rather than to take that by the open vas
venosum or pulmonary vein, or even through the lax, soft, and spongy
substance of the lungs at large. Besides, if the blood could permeate
the substance of the septum, or could be imbibed from the ventricles,
what use were there for the coronary artery and vein, branches of
which proceed to the septum itself, to supply it with nourishment? And
what is especially worthy of notice is this: if in the fœtus, where
everything is more lax and soft, nature saw herself reduced to the
necessity of bringing the blood from the right into the left side of
the heart by the foramen ovale, from the vena cava through the arteria
venosa, how should it be likely that in the adult she should pass it so
commodiously, and without an effort, through the septum ventriculorum,
which has now become denser by age?
Andreas Laurentius,[18] resting on the authority of Galen[19] and the
experience of Hollerius, asserts and proves that the serum and pus in
empyema, absorbed from the cavities of the chest into the pulmonary
vein, may be expelled and got rid of with the urine and fæces through
the left ventricle of the heart and arteries. He quotes the case of
a certain person affected with melancholia, and who suffered from
repeated fainting fits, who was relieved from the paroxysms on passing
a quantity of turbid, fetid, and acrid urine; but he died at last, worn
out by the disease; and when the body came to be opened after death, no
fluid like that he had micturated was discovered either in the bladder
or in the kidneys; but in the left ventricle of the heart and cavity
of the thorax plenty of it was met with; and then Laurentius boasts
that he had predicted the cause of the symptoms. For my own part,
however, I cannot but wonder, since he had divined and predicted that
heterogeneous matter could be discharged by the course he indicates,
why he could not or would not perceive, and inform us that, in the
natural state of things, the blood might be commodiously transferred
from the lungs to the left ventricle of the heart by the very same
route.
[18] Lib. ix, cap. xi, quest. 12.
[19] De Locis Affectis., lib. vi, cap. 7.
Since, therefore, from the foregoing considerations and many others
to the same effect, it is plain that what has heretofore been said
concerning the motion and function of the heart and arteries must
appear obscure, or inconsistent or even impossible to him who carefully
considers the entire subject; it will be proper to look more narrowly
into the matter; to contemplate the motion of the heart and arteries,
not only in man, but in all animals that have hearts; and further, by
frequent appeals to vivisection, and constant ocular inspection, to
investigate and endeavour to find the truth.
CHAPTER I
THE AUTHOR’S MOTIVES FOR WRITING
When I first gave my mind to vivisections, as a means of discovering
the motions and uses of the heart, and sought to discover these from
actual inspection, and not from the writings of others, I found the
task so truly arduous, so full of difficulties, that I was almost
tempted to think, with Fracastorius, that the motion of the heart was
only to be comprehended by God. For I could neither rightly perceive at
first when the systole and when the diastole took place, nor when and
where dilatation and contraction occurred, by reason of the rapidity of
the motion, which in many animals is accomplished in the twinkling of
an eye, coming and going like a flash of lightning; so that the systole
presented itself to me now from this point, now from that; the diastole
the same; and then everything was reversed, the motions occurring, as
it seemed, variously and confusedly together. My mind was therefore
greatly unsettled, nor did I know what I should myself conclude, nor
what believe from others; I was not surprised that Andreas Laurentius
should have said that the motion of the heart was as perplexing as the
flux and reflux of Euripus had appeared to Aristotle.
At length, and by using greater and daily diligence, having frequent
recourse to vivisections, employing a variety of animals for the
purpose, and collating numerous observations, I thought that I had
attained to the truth, that I should extricate myself and escape from
this labyrinth, and that I had discovered what I so much desired, both
the motion and the use of the heart and arteries; since which time I
have not hesitated to expose my views upon these subjects, not only in
private to my friends, but also in public, in my anatomical lectures,
after the manner of the Academy of old.
These views, as usual, pleased some more, others less; some chid and
calumniated me, and laid it to me as a crime that I had dared to
depart from the precepts and opinion of all anatomists; others desired
further explanations of the novelties, which they said were both worthy
of consideration, and might perchance be found of signal use. At
length, yielding to the requests of my friends, that all might be made
participators in my labours, and partly moved by the envy of others,
who receiving my views with uncandid minds and understanding them
indifferently, have essayed to traduce me publicly, I have been moved
to commit these things to the press, in order that all may be enabled
to form an opinion both of me and my labours. This step I take all
the more willingly, seeing that Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente,
although he has accurately and learnedly delineated almost every one
of the several parts of animals in a special work, has left the heart
alone untouched. Finally, if any use or benefit to this department
of the republic of letters should accrue from my labours, it will,
perhaps, be allowed that I have not lived idly, and, as the old man in
the comedy says:
For never yet has any one attained
To such perfection, but that time, and place,
And use, have brought addition to his knowledge;
Or made correction, or admonished him,
That he was ignorant of much which he
Had thought he knew; or led him to reject
What he had once esteemed of highest price.
So will it, perchance, be found with reference to the heart at this
time; or others, at least, starting from hence, the way pointed out
to them, advancing under the guidance of a happier genius, may make
occasion to proceed more fortunately, and to inquire more accurately.