132 



DISCOVERY 



Buddha," so, in the hut of the Japanese gyoja on 

 Togakushi-san in Shinshiu, I was assured that the 

 mountaineer with sufficient faith, who should be there 

 at early dawn, would behold Amida Buddha riding 

 on a cloud of many gorgeous hues. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Aston : Shinto (Longmans, Green & Co.), 



Lowell: Occult Japan (Houghton Mifflin Co.). 



Weston: Mountaineering in the Japanese Alps (John Murray). 



Weston : The Playground of the Far East (John Murray). 



Biology in Shakespeare 

 I. 



By D. Fraser Harris, M.D., D.Sc. 



Pro/cssor of Pliijsio'.ogij at Dalhoiisic Uiiivcrsily, Ilutijax, A'.S. 



Sii.vKESPEARE has been called a complete intellect ; 

 and this would be justified ii one contemplated only 

 the profundity of his knowledge of human nature in 

 all ages and at all social levels. Nothing that has 

 ever passed through the human mind seems to have 

 escaped him. It would be easy to draw up a catalogue 

 of the mistakes and anachronisms of Shakespeare ; 

 but were the list ten times the length it is, they would 

 be completely atoned for by the penetration of his 

 instinct and its unerringness wherever the workings of 

 the human mind are concerned. 



If in biological science Shakespeare did repeat the 

 mistaken notions current in his day, it may be none the 

 less interesting to examine some of these in detail, and 

 by the light of our modern knowledge of life endeavour 

 to understand just \\hat phenomena they were that 

 engaged Shakespeare's attention. 



The question arises, did Shakespeare know the 

 physiology current in his day, and, if so, did he give 

 expression to what was generally believed, or, as re- 

 gards the matter of that science as in so much else, 

 did he transcend the views current in his time and flash 

 forth beyond them in prophetic prevision ? 



It happens that Shakespeare lived at a time when 

 most momentous discoveries were taking place in 

 physiology. Shakespeare and the world-renowned Dr. 

 William Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of 

 the blood, were contemporaries for some thirty-eight 

 years of their lives, for Shakespeare was born in 1564 

 and died in 1616, while Harvey was born in 157S and 

 died in 1657. Harvey was thirty-eight years old when 

 Shakespeare died. By 1616 Harvey had not, however, 

 announced his epoch-making discovery which was 



published in 1628, and even then not in England, but 

 at Frankfort-on-the-Main. 



It is rather curious to remember that the earliest 

 writings of Harvey known to contain any description 

 of the circulation of the blood, in which the heart is 

 regarded as the central power for it, are dated 1616. 

 These are none other than Harvey's manuscript notes 

 for his Lumleian lectures, the first of which he delivered 

 at the College of Physicians on April 16, 1616. These 

 precious leaves accidentally discovered have been 

 bound together and now repose in the British Museum. 



Seeing that Shakespeare died on April 23, 1616, it 

 is at once apparent that he could have known nothing 

 of the Harveian views on the circulation of the blood, 

 the starting point of modern physiology, for the 

 Exercitatio dc iiiotn cordis et sanguinis in animalihiis was 

 not printed for twelve years after that date. Thus 

 Shakespeare could not have known of his great con- 

 temporary's discovery because he died twelve years 

 too soon. Neither could Shakespeare's son-in-law. 

 Dr. Hall, of Stratford-on-Avon, have told him of it, 

 as some have thoughtlessly suggested he might, since, 

 for one thing. Hall married Shakespeare's daughter 

 as early as 1607. Some uncritical writers have 

 assumed that Shakespeare must have known of the 

 circulation of the blood because he was a contemporary 

 of Harvey. But the two great men may never have 

 met. Harvey was a student of medicine at Padua 

 from 1598 to 1602, the very time when Shakespeare was 

 at the height of his activitj^ 



Even if they did meet, the young doctor was not in 

 the least likely to discuss with the great actor his revo- 

 lutionary view of a matter of pure physiology. If 

 Harvey discussed so technical a subject before he gave 

 it to the world, it would have been exclusively with his 

 medical brethren. We should expect from a priori 

 considerations, without examining Shakespeare's 

 works at all, that their author was not acquainted 

 with the new views concerning the circulation of the 

 blood. A close examination of these writings confirms 

 this opinion in the fullest manner. 



If Shakespeare, then, was not acquainted with the 

 Harveian doctrine, what view did he know ? The 

 reply is that he evidently held the views which had been 

 taught in the medical schools of Europe for 1,400 years 

 — the views of Claudius Galen. 



The Galenical notions of the movement of the blood 

 can be understood only after still earlier views are com- 

 prehended. The distinction between arteries and veins 

 was made before even the time of Aristotle. Shortly 

 after the death of Aristotle, Erasistratus (300 B.C.), of 

 Alexandria, thought that blood for the nourishing of the 

 body travelled up and down the veins only ; whereas 

 in the arteries " vital spirits " alone were found. 

 Erasistratus thought that arteries during life did not 



