Publication of the Theory, in 1846, in "A treatise on the Motive Powers
which produce the Circulation of the Blood." Its Reception: Critique
in the New York "Journal of Medicine," September, 1846. My Reply, in
the same Journal, March, 1847.
TO DR. MARCY.--In the years immediately succeeding 1840, (in which year,
as you will recollect, I had the honor to receive your countenance and
advice respecting my theory,) I was almost exclusively devoted to the
revision and enlargement of my historical works; but early is 1846,
having determined on making the tour of the United States, I resolved
first to prepare my theory for the press. In the introduction, I
remarked, "The house of clay in which the mind dwells must receive a
portion of its care; and that which I have bestowed on mine has
proceeded on a belief in the truth of the theory herein advocated, as
undoubting as that in the laws of gravitation; and when any new fact, or
any remark of an author, relating to my theory came under my
observation, I noted it down and laid it by with its kindred. About to
set out on a long journey, and aware that my field of vision had thus
enlarged, I felt it my duty to put together the principal of my remarks,
that I might so leave the subject, that, in case anything should prevent
my return, it would be in a form equal to the present slate in which the
theory exists in my own mind."
The time I had spent in devotion to this theory, the many rebuffs I had
met in seeking to promulgate it--sometimes, unhappily, affecting my
social life--had made painful the duty of publishing it. My historical
works had been received with favor; but I believed that, in publishing
this, it would be charged against me that I chose a subject unsuited to
my sex. I therefore said, in my preface, "This is not so much a subject
which I chose, as one which chooses me; and if the Father of Lights has
been pleased to reveal to me from the book of his physical truth a
sentence before unread, is it for me to suppose that it is for my
individual benefit? or is it for you, my reader, to turn away your ear
from hearing this truth, and charge its great Author with having
ill-chosen his instrument to communicate it?"
As I passed southward on my journey, I left, March, 1846, my
manuscript in the hands of Wiley & Putnam, in N. York:[4] to be
published at my expense. During the six months in which I was absent
on my travels, my book was published; and the publishers sent copies,
as directed by me, to many of my personal friends, and to several
physicians. They sent other copies, which procured notices, some of
which were favorable, particularly one from the _London Critic_, and
others, the reverse. As few copies of the book sold, I was not
remunerated for the cost of publication. The copies sent to physicians
were mostly unacknowledged--received in cold, if not contemptuous,
silence. But my family physician, the worthy and learned Dr. Robbins,
to whom I dedicated the work, ever upheld me. He answered my questions,
gave me instructions, and showed me post-mortem dissections; and to
those who asked him if he believed in my theory, he wisely replied,
"Mrs. Willard is right as far as she goes." He knew that I made no
pretensions to understand the vast variety of medical subjects not
connected with the circulation, and that I never doubted his skill or
disputed his prescriptions. An honest man, and a skilful physician, he
deserved and had my unfailing confidence. And if, by reason of what I
knew, I had prolonged my life, he had the longer kept a good and
faithful patient. Lady-friends, to whom I had sent my work, had
sometimes referred it to their medical advisers; and thus Dr. Hiester,
an eminent physician of Reading, Pa., became a believer. And in the same
way, the eminent Dr. Cartwright, then of Natchez, and President of the
State Medical Association of Mississippi, came to a knowledge of those
principles, which, as we shall hereafter show, he so remarkably
elucidated.
In September, 1846, the _New York Journal of Medicine_, then edited by
Dr. Charles A. Lee, contained a review or critique on my work, which, if
the history of the theory shall hereafter become a matter of special
interest, may, with my reply, contained in the March number of 1847,
furnish any examiner with the full state of the question at that period.
The learned reviewer showed himself acquainted with the subject as it
then stood, and with its history in the past. He held that the heart's
action, "the contractile power of the cardiac walls," is the main spring
or _primum mobile_, from which the circulating force proceeds,
notwithstanding the great discrepancies as to what that force is; and
while he objected to my theory, that it did not show any distinct
measure of force, he said that, while Borelli estimated the contractive
power of the heart at 180,000 pounds, Keill stated it at five ounces,
Sir Charles Bell at 51 pounds, Carpenter at 511/2, and Hales at 50. He
abandoned, however, Harvey's idea that the heart was the only organ of
circulation. He believed that it was assisted by the contractile power
of the arteries, by the movement of the ribs and chest in respiration,
by capillary attraction, muscular contraction in exercise, and several
other forces; one of which, the attraction of the venous blood for the
pulmonary cells, had been recently pointed out by Dr. Draper. The author
did not suppose he was bringing forward any new truths; "but," said he,
as an introduction to his account of my theory, "are we not sometimes in
danger of forsaking old truths for new theories?"
Of my theory, he says: "The mere statement of it must satisfy our
readers that it is wholly untenable. It is well known that heat is
generated in every part of the system as well as the lungs. Whenever
oxygen and carbon unite, there it is developed; but it is imparted to
the _solids_ equally with the fluids; it maintains the temperature of
the whole body by radiations from the points where it is generated." ...
"It is believed that all those functions of the organism which are
necessary for the preservation of life, contribute directly or
indirectly to the production of animal heat; so that it is developed at
every point at which metamorphosis is occurring, and therefore not
merely in the lungs, but in the whole peripheral system."
The writer then observes, that "the heat of the venous blood as it
reaches the right side of the heart (according to Davy), varies only two
or three degrees from that of the aorta. Granting, then, that the blood
receives three degrees in the lungs, it is very evident that the
expansion produced by it would be too small to be appreciable. The
cause, then, is insufficient to produce the effects." The writer gives
me credit for having ingeniously supported my theory, and then politely
bows me out of the department of physiology into my more appropriate
sphere of educating girls.
In my reply, this sentence from Cuvier was chosen as a motto:
"Respiration is the function essential to the constitution of an animal
body; it is that which, in a manner, animalizes it; and we shall see
that animals exercise their peculiar functions more completely according
as they enjoy greater powers of respiration."[5] My reasoning was to
this effect: "It is in vain to say that cannot be, which is." When
two events are so conjoined in nature that one is the only invariable
antecedent of the other, then, according to all logic, we are bound to
conclude that the first is the physical cause of the second, even though
we cannot understand how it should be. Of the circulation, such living
respiration as produces heat is the invariable antecedent, and nothing
else is. The heart's action, as stated by our reviewer himself, is not
therefore respiration, and not the heart's action or anything else, is
the cause of the circulation. This argument is upheld by the fact that
circulation, varies not only as respiration, but as its products
digestion, strength, and, according to Cuvier, animal vitality vary. All
begin with respiration, end with it, and are as it is. If respiration
ceases, restore it before the organism is deranged, and they are all
restored. We must conclude, then, that respiration is the cause of
circulation, although we could not see how it should be. Much more, when
we discern a mighty power, that of expansion, and see how the Almighty
has made our frame in reference to its production by caloric--the lungs
allowing of heat within them like wet cloth, and the nerves, bones and
muscles all made and arranged, so that oxygen shall be brought to them
by respiration on the one hand, and carbon by the numerous digestive and
circulatory organs on the other.
As to any deficiency of power, my reviewer had omitted to notice that
not only the ordinary expansion of the water of the blood by calorie had
been assumed, but also its vaporization, or the change of such a portion
as was needed into steam, the lungs being _in vacuo_; so that nature
here had not failed of her usual abundance. And had not this power been
kept in check by the pressure of the surrounding air hindering the
perfect vacuum of the lungs, there was reason to fear, rather its excess
than its deficiency. As to the reviewer's assertion that heat is
generated in every part of the system, and imparted to the _solids_
equally with the fluids--that I positively denied, in the name of common
sense. For who does not know that, although there may be some heat
elaborated in the stomach, and some during the processes by which the
fluids change to solids, that the great source of heat to the system, is
in the fluid blood, and not in solid flesh or bone? Our senses of sight
and feeling show us, in the case of blushing, that heat comes and goes
with the blood. No one believes that the solid parts of his leg warm the
blood as much as it warms them. Finally, it discredited the old theory,
that it showed no adequate use for the great primary function of
respiration, and its constant attendant, animal heat. Breathing and
warmth are not ultimate ends. Man breathes to live; he does not live to
breathe. He is warm to live; he does not live merely to be warm. Our
theory shows that it is these primary agencies which sustain his being;
and it sets forth the manner in which they operate for this end. And
thus, while it indicates the wisdom of the Almighty in the formation of
the animal frame, it shows itself to be His true interpreter.