PATHOLOGY. 
80 
which had baffled all the efforts of the great geniufes of 
antiquity. In order to perfedt this defign, it was only ne- 
ceffary to extend the ideas of the firft architedt. He in¬ 
dicated the route, through which the blood paffes from 
the right to the left ventricle ; it remained to be proved 
that all the blood takes this paffage, and that it returns 
again to the heart from the arteries through the veins. 
The obfcure Iketch of the circulation, which was fur- 
niffled by Servetus, appears in a more finilhed and lu¬ 
minous form in the works of Realdus Columbus. He 
defcribes the entrance of the blood into the heart from 
the vena cava, and its fubfequent paffage through the 
lungs into the left ventricle and aorta. He advanced a 
ftep farther than Servetus ; for he dates that the whole 
blood paffes through the lungs, and not the vital fpirit 
only. But he falls into the fame error with preceding 
anatomifts on the fubjedt of the liver; fuppofing that 
gland to be the fource of the blood which nourilhes the 
ftomach, fpleen, &c. Arantius and Caefalpinus defcribed 
more perfedtly and clearly than Columbus the paffage of 
the blood through the lungs ; which they confirmed by 
feveral arguments drawn from the ftrudture of the parts, 
and particularly from the pofition and mechanifm of the 
valves. The latter indeed approached very nearly to the 
grand deiideratum, the paffage of the blood from the ar¬ 
teries through the veins to the heart. He obferves that 
a vein fwells below' the ligature; but he did not follow 
this up to prove the circulation. He fays that the blood 
returns to the heart through the veins during fieep; but 
he fuppofed it to move backwards and forwards in the 
fame veffels, like the Euripus. He was milled alfo in 
the labyrinth of the liver, where fo many phyfiologifts 
have loft themfelves. The arrangement of the arteries 
and veins in this organ prefents fuch an intricate combi¬ 
nation, that we need not wonder at its proving, for fo 
long a time, a fource of miftake and illufion. Paul Sarpi, 
the learned hiftorian of the council of Trent, is one of 
thofe to whom the circulation is faid to have been knowm; 
but the want of all arguments that bear the leaft convic¬ 
tion on the fubjedt, will juftify us in declining any par¬ 
ticular consideration of his claim, as well as thofe of 
Fabri a Jefuit, of Helvicus Dietericus, and others. 
Notwithftanding the labours and writings of the ana¬ 
tomifts whofe opinions we have thus curforily examined, 
the minds of men were ftill enflaved by thofe errors, 
which, having prevailed for fo many centuries, had ac¬ 
quired the fandtion which time and authority beftow on 
any opinions, however abfurd. The moft enlightened 
phyficians were fatisfied with the labours of their precie- 
ceffors ; and Harvey alone had fufficient courage and in¬ 
formation to canvafs thefe inveterate prejudices, which 
length of time had confecrated as infallible truths. He 
obferved and defcribed the true courfe of the blood with 
a wonderful fagacity and clearnefs. None of the argu¬ 
ments, which prove the circulation, efcaped the refearches 
of this acute obferver; fo that a modern phyfiologift, in 
recounting the proofs of this phyfiological fadl, could add 
little, if any thing, to what is accumulated in the ori¬ 
ginal work of Harvey. He was not contented with de- 
monftrating the circulation in fome parts only ; but fol¬ 
lowed up the fubjedt in all the vifcera of the body. He 
traced the courfe of the blood through the liver, where 
every preceding anatomift had difcovered nothing but 
perplexity and confufion. The work of Harvey is, in 
(hort, one of thofe rare and precious produdtions which 
embrace a fubjedt in its whole extent, and prefent it to 
the mind in fo perfedt and finilhed a form, as fcarcely to 
admit a tingle addition or improvement. 
The merits of our countryman, whofe fame can never 
perilh while medical fcience continues to be cultivated, 
will be exalted to a ftill higher pitch, when we confider 
the ftate of medical knowledge in England at that time. 
While anatomical fchools had been long eftablilhed in 
Italy, France, and Germany, and feveral teachers had 
rendered their names illuftrious by the fuccefsful purfuit 
of the fcience, anatomy was ftill unknown in England, 
where diffedfion had hitherto hardly begun. Yet, at this 
inaufpicious period, did Harvey make the difcovery, 
which may be considered as a fecond and more perfedt 
foundation of the fcience of medicine ; and which amply 
juftifies Haller in ranking him as fecond to Hippocrates 
only. 
The publication of this grand difcovery roufed the 
attention of all Europe. The old profeffors, accuftomed 
to pay a blind and implicit deference to the authority of 
Galen, which w r as now utterly fubverted, and, aftiameci 
of confeffing that their whole life had been fpent in teach¬ 
ing the groffeft errors, took up their pens in oppofition 
to the author of thefe innovations. One party afferted 
that the difcovery was not a new one : that it had been 
known to feveral perfons, and, indeed, to all antiquity. 
Such were the aflertions of Nardi, Vander Linden, Hart- 
mahn, Almeloveen, Barra, Drelincourt, Patin, Falconet, 
Heifter, Regnault, &c. A fufficient refutation of thefe 
ftatements will be found in the hiftorical Iketch, which 
we have already exhibited. Other adverfaries of Harvey 
proceeded in a more rational manner; and attempted to 
difprove his ftatements by experiment and reafoning. 
Primerofeled the wayin this attack, and he was followed 
by Emilius Parifanus, John Riolan, Cafpar Hoffman, 
and others. If men of fuch acknowledged erudition as 
Riolan and Hoffman were fo utterly unacquainted with 
the circulation as to deny it altogether, may we not fafely 
conclude that the fubjedt is not defcribed in any of the 
writers who preceded Harvey ? Out of all his numerous 
opponents, this illuftrious man anfwered Riolan only, 
in his “Secunda et Tertia Exercitatio de Circulatione 
Sanguinis.” The reply was rather extorted by the rank 
and fame of Riolan, than by the ftrength of his argument. 
If we feek to define exactly the precife (hare of merit 
which Harvey may claim in the grand difcovery of the 
circulation, it will be necteffary to hold a middle courfe 
between the grofs and palpable ablurdity of thofe who 
difcover a knowledge of the circulation in the writings 
of Solomon, Hippocrates, Plato, Ariftotle, &c. and the 
too great partiality of fuch as would deny all knowledge 
of the fubjedt to every anatomift who preceded Harvey. 
It feldom happens, that fo extenfive and intricate a fub¬ 
jedt as that which we are now confidering, is furveyed 
and brought to light in all its branches by the labour 
of an individual; nor has it happened in the prefent 
inftance. For Servetus, Columbus, Arantius, and Cae- 
falpinus, were acquainted with the courfe of the blood 
through the lungs; and the latter writer has even an ob¬ 
fcure hint towards the greater circulation. But no one 
attempted to prove the latter point by arguments and 
experiment before the time of Harvey: the expreffions of 
Caefalpinus, which are by no means clear or fatisfadiory, 
had been before the public for half a century without 
exciting the leaft inveftigation, and without fuggefting 
to Fabricius the true office of the valves in the veins. 
The entire merit of the greater circulation may, there¬ 
fore, be afcribed to our illuftrious countryman ; and, if 
we compare the luminous method and irrefragable proofs 
which are found in his expoiition of the other part of the 
fubjedt, with the partial and confufed ftatements of pre¬ 
ceding authors, his merit will here be only fecond in de¬ 
gree to that of adtual difcovery. 
The dodtrine of the circulation met with fome fup- 
porters on its firft promulgation. Walaeus of Leyden ex¬ 
erted himfelf ftrenuoufly on this fide, and defended the 
propofitions of Harvey in two excellent letters addreffed 
to Bartholin. Des Cartes alfo, whofe authority at that 
time carried vaft weight with it, took a decided part in 
the controverfy in favour of Harvey, from its commence¬ 
ment. The dodlrine was pretty generally admitted 
throughout Europe before the deceafe of its propofer. 
The nature of the communication between the arte¬ 
ries and veins was left undetermined by Harvey, who 
decided no point which he could not make the fubjedt of 
experiment. 
