WILLIAM HARVEY. 



395 



I venture to think that if Francis Bacon, in- 

 stead of spending his time in fabricating fine 

 phrases about the advancement of learning, in 

 order to play, with due pomp, the part which he 

 assigned to himself of "trumpeter" of science, 

 had put himself under Harvey's instruction, and 

 had applied his quick wit to discover and method- 

 ize the logical process which underlaid the work 

 of that consummate investigator, he would have 

 employed his time to better purpose ; aud, at any 

 rate, would not have deserved the just but sharp 

 judgment which follows: "that his (Bacon's) 

 method is impracticable, cannot, I think, be de- 

 nied, if we reflect, not only that it never has pro- 

 duced any result, but also that the process by 

 which scientific truths have been established can- 

 not be so presented as even to appear to be in 

 accordance with it." I quote from one of Mr. 

 Ellis's contributions to the great work of Bacon's 

 most learned, competent, and impartial biogra- 

 pher, Mr. Spedding. 1 



Few of Harvey's sayings are recorded, but Au- 

 brey 2 tells us that some one having enlarged 

 upon the merits of the Baconian philosophy in his 

 presence, " Yes," said Harvey, " he writes philos- 

 ophy like a chancellor." On which pithy reply 

 diverse persons will put diverse interpretations. 

 The illumination of experience may possibly 

 tempt a modern follower of Harvey to expound 

 the dark saying thus : " So this servile courtier, 

 this intriguing politician, this unscrupulous law- 

 yer, this witty master of phrases, proposes to 

 teach me my business in the intervals of his. I 

 have borne with Riolan, let me also be patient 

 with him ; " at any rate, I have no better reading 

 to offer. 



In the latter half of the sixteenth and the be- 

 ginning of the seventeenth centuries, the future 

 of physical science was safe enough in the hands 



sertorem experiential et vanissimum causatorem. . . . 

 O canicula ! O pestis !— Temporis Partus Masculus ! " 

 " Canicula " has even a coarser meaning than 

 "puppy." 



1 General Preface to the Philosophical Works, vol. 

 i.,p.38. 



2 Aubrey says : " He had been physitian to the Lord 

 Ch. Bacon, whom he esteemed much for his witt 

 and style, but would not allow to be a great philos- 

 opher. Said he to me, ' He writes philosophy like a 

 IA Chancellor,' speaking in derision. ... He was 

 very communicative, and willing to instruct any that 

 were modest and respectful to him. And in order to 

 my journey dictated to me what to see, what company 

 to keep, what bookes to read, how to manage my 

 studyes; in short, he bid me go to the fountaine head, 

 and read Aristotle, Cicero, Avicenna, and did call the 

 Neoteriques "— something almost as bad as " cani- 

 cula : " the little swarthy, black-eyed, choleric man. 



of Gilbert, Galileo, Harvey, Descartes, and the 

 noble army of investigators who flocked to their 

 standard, and followed up the advance of their 

 leaders. I do not believe that their wonderfully 

 rapid progress would have been one whit retarded 

 if the " Novum Organon " had never seen the light ; 

 while if Harvey's little " Exercise " had been lost, 

 physiology would have stood still until another 

 Harvey was born into the world. 



There is another point in reference to method 

 on which I desire to contribute my mite toward 

 the dissipation of a wide-spread popular delusion. 

 On the faith of a conversation reported by Robert 

 Boyle, Harvey is said to have declared that he 

 discovered the circulation of the blood by rea- 

 soning deductively from the disposition of the 

 valves of the veins. On this I may remark, 

 firstly, that the words imputed to Harvey by no 

 means warrant this conclusion ; secondly, that if 

 they did, the statement could not be true, be- 

 cause we have Harvey's own evidence to the 

 contrary ; and, thirdly, that if the conclusion were 

 warranted by the words reported, and were not 

 contradicted by Harvey himself, it would still be 

 worthless, because it is impossible to prove the 

 circulation of the blood from any such data. 

 What Robert Boyle says is this : " And I remem- 

 ber, that when I asked our famous Harvey, in the 

 only discourse I had with him (which was but a 

 while before he died), what were the things that 

 induced him to think of a circulation of the 

 blood ? he answered me that when he took notice 

 that the valves in the veins of so many parts of 

 the body were so placed that they gave free 

 passage to the blood toward the heart, but op- 

 posed the passage of the venal blood the con- 

 trary way : he was invited to imagine that so 

 provident a cause as Nature had not so placed 

 so many valves without design; and no design 

 seemed more probable, than that since the blood 

 could not well, because of the interposing valves, 

 be sent by the veins to the limbs, it should be 

 sent through the arteries and return through the 

 veins, whose valves did not oppose its course 

 that way." ' 



I have no doubt that it may be quite true that 

 Harvey was " induced " to " think of a circulation 

 of the blood " by considering the disposition of 

 the valves of the veins ; just as Caesalpinus might 

 have been led to the same thought ; and then 

 might have found out the true state of the case 

 if he had taken the hints which Nature gave him 

 and had used the proper means of investigation 



1 " A Disquisition about the Final Causes of Natu- 

 ral Things."— Boyle's Works, vol. v., p. 437. 



