M a r i u s VAN L I E B U R G ( A m s t e r d a m , N e t h e r l a n d s )

C 4 3

THE EARLY RECEPTION OF HARVEY'S THEORY ON BLOODCIRCULATION

IN THE NETHERLANDS

I n medica l -h is tor ica l l i t e r a t u r e it is genera l ly s t a t e d t h a t t h e accep ta t ion of Wil l iam Harvey ' s t heo ry on b loodc i rcu la t ion o c c u r r e d in t h e D u t c h Republ ic d u r i n g the yea r s 1637-1640. In t h a t con tex t t h e w o r k s of René Desca r t e s (1596-1650) a n d J o h a n v a n Beverwi jck (1594-1647) a r e a lways m e n t i o n e d as t h e l a n d m a r k s for t h e accep ta t ion ou t s ide t h e un ivers i t i e s , whi le in t h e a c a d e m i c field t h e t each ings a n d wr i t i ngs of J o h a n n e s Wa laeus (1604-1649) a r e cons ide red t o m a r k t h e beg inn ing of t h e defence of t h e n e w physiological concept of b loodc i rcu la t ion .

I n th is bird-eye v iew of the ear ly recept ion I hope t o m a k e c lea r however , t h a t Ha rvey ' s t h e o r y w a s a l r eady d i scussed in the N e t h e r l a n d s a t t h e l a t e s t in 1633. T h r e e genera l r e m a r k s m a y p recede th i s survey. F i rs t ly , w e h a v e t o m a i n t a i n t h e d i s t inc t ion be tween t h e a c a d e m i c a n d non-academic a r e a of recept ion , whi le espe­cially t h e un ive r s i t i e s h a d t he i r own , p r e d o m i n a n t l y res i s t ing fac tors in t h e p rocess of innova t ion . Secondly , it is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t t h e d i scuss ion ou t s ide t h e un ivers i t i e s is (as w e wil l see) a l m o s t fully c o n c e n t r a t e d in D o r d r e c h t a n d R o t t e r d a m , wh i l e f rom t o w n s l ike A m s t e r d a m of The H a g u e w e have no evidence of ear ly d i scuss ion of Harvey ' s theory . Aspects of local h i s to ry , w h i c h ce r t a in ly cou ld e luc ida te th i s fact , m u s t b e passed over he re . Thi rd ly , it is a s t r i n k i n g fact t h a t a lso in t h e ea r ly d i scuss ions Harvey ' s t heo ry itself obviously w a s easi ly accep ted ; bu t t h e implica­t ions for phi losophical concep ts , as well as for m e d i c a l t heory a n d p rac t i ce in genera l , p r e s e n t e d a b a r r i e r t o public a d h e r a n c e .

I n connec t ion w i t h t h e a s se r t i on a b o u t t h e a c a d e m i c recep t ion t h e w e l l k n o w n s to ry of t h e Swed i sh s t u d e n t J a k o b S w a b a t Leyden m a y be reca l led to m i n d , w h o in the spr ing of 1631 conf ron ted his t e a c h e r s w i t h Harvey ' s De motu cordis, b u t w h o only received t h e advice to exerc ise t h e g r e a t e s t p r u d e n c e in co r r ec t i ng old med ica l theor ies . F r o m t h e Positiones variae medicae, w h i c h F r a n c i s c u s de le Boé , Sylvius (1614-1672) defended a t Leyden Univers i ty in Ju ly 1634, w e k n o w t h a t a t least t h e p u l m o n a r y c i rcu la t ion of t h e blood w a s accepted , as Gubser h a s po in ted ou t in 1964. After 1634 howeve r t h e r e a r e no t id ings f r o m t h e Leyden Univers i ty abou t Harvey ' s t heo ry till 1640 w h e n Walaeus p r e s e n t e d h is opinion publicly. In t h a t s a m e y e a r t h e un ivers i t i e s of U t r ech t a n d Gron ingen fol lowed.

Looking a t t he s i tua t ion ou t s ide t h e un ivers i t i e s w e c o m e ac ross t h e c o m m u ­n ica t ion of Pau l M a r q u a r d Schlegel (1605-1653), w h o tel ls u s in t h e accoun t of h is j o u r n e y t h r o u g h H o l l a n d b e t w e e n 1631 a n d 1634 t h a t he could no t r e m e m b e r to h a v e m e t any phys ic ian w h o ob jec ted to Harvey ' s theory . H e r e t h e ques t ion m u s t be p u t a s t o w h e t h e r Schlegel ' s s t a t e m e n t is suppor t ed by o t h e r sources .

I n t h e case of t h e m e n t i o n e d sources f rom Desca r t e s a n d Van Beverwi jck , m o s t a u t h o r s h a v e c o m m i t t e d a me thodo log ica l e r r o r by only looking a t t h e d a t e

102

of pub l ica t ion , neg lec t ing t h e d a t e a t w h i c h t h e w r i t e r ' s ideas w e r e g e n e r a t e d a n d t h e subsequen t d a t e of t h e pub l ica t ion itself. R e g a r d i n g t h e Discours de la méthode of Desca r t e s , t o w h i c h h e a d d e d a modi f ica t ion of H a r v e y ' s t h e o r y as t h e ba s i s of h i s m e c h a n i s t i c physiology, w e k n o w t h a t th i s add i t ion s u m m a r i z e s t h e Traite de VHomme of 1632. F r o m th i s t r e a t i s e as we l l as f rom h i s co r re spondence , i t appea r s t h a t a l r eady in 1629 Desca r t e s h e a r d abou t H a r v e y ' s theory , b u t r e a d De motu cordis n o t un t i l 1632, a f te r h a v i n g f o r m u l a t e d t h e t ex t of t h e Traite de l'Homme.

Concern ing Van Beve rwi j ck h is b iog raphe r B a u m a n n h a s s t a t e d t h a t V a n Beverwi jck ' s book De calculo renum et vesicae w a s a l r eady f in ished in 1634. I w o u l d l ike to defend t h e suppos i t ion t h a t V a n Beverwi jck ' s book, a n d t h u s t h e passage in it a b o u t t h e c i rcu la t ion of t h e b lood w a s f in ished in S e p t e m b e r 1633. T h e e ight l e t t e r s in t h e appendix of h i s book a r e d a t e d b e t w e e n S e p t e m b r e 1633 a n d Ju ly 1637. I n t h e s u m m e r of 1637 Van Beve rwi j ck s e n t h i s m a n u s c r i p t t o t h e p ress ; a t t h e e n d of 1637 t h e book w a s a l r eady pub l i shed as w e k n o w f r o m V a n Beverwi jck ' s l e t t e r t o Wil l iam Harvey . I n t h e m e a n t i m e , b e t w e e n 1633 a n d 1637 V a n Beverwi jck h o w e v e r publ i shed severa l o t h e r b o o k s , for i n s t a n c e his Schat der Gesontheyst (1636) a n d h is Idea Medecina Veterum (1637), in bo th of w h i c h h e offers a Galenic concep t of b l o o d m o v e m e n t . T h u s w e m a y conc lude t ha t , a l t hough V a n Beverwi jck ce r ta in ly w a s c o n v e r s a n t w i t h H a r v e y ' s t heo ry in S e p t e m b e r 1633 pr ivate ly , a n d even employed th is t heo ry in h is desc r ip t ion of r ena l physiology, h e publicly a d h e r e d to Galen ' s s y s t e m of b l o o d m o v e m e n t till t he e n d of 1637.

I n th is paper we do no t m e r e l y w a n t t o ind ica t e the i m p o r t a n c e of t h e pre­h i s to ry of publ ica t ions in defence of Wil l iam H a r v e y b y phys ic ians whose n a m e s a r e fami l i a r in m e d i c a l h i s to ry , b u t a lso w a n t to i n t r o d u c e in to t h e l i t e r a t u r e abou t t h e recep t ion of t he theory of b loodci rcu la t ion t h e w o r k of a less k n o w n sc ien t i s t : I s a a c B e e c k m a n (1588-1637). I n t h e h i s t o ry of sc ience t h e n a m e of B e e c k m a n is well-k n o w n , no t only for his ear ly s t a t e m e n t of t h e l aws of falling, bu t a lso for h i s c o n s e q u e n t r ea son ing in a t o m i s t i c t e r m s , h i s m a n y inven t ions , h i s t echnolog ica l i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d for his co r r e spondence w i t h Mer senne , Gassend i a n d Desca r t e s . F r o m his d i a ry no tes , m a d e d u r i n g h is ye a r s in D o r d r e c h t , we m a y a lso r e c o n s t r u c t h i s ideas a b o u t Harvey ' s theory . F r o m t h a t sou rce w e k n o w t h a t in April 1633 B e e c k m a n w a s stil l u n a w a r e of t h e c i rcu la t ion of t he blood. T h e first acquain­t a n c e w i t h Harvey ' s t heo ry B e e c k m a n m u s t h a v e m a d e in J u n e 1633 f rom J a m e s P r imerose ' s Exercitationes et animadversiones, severa l passages in w h i c h h e c o m m e n t a t e d in favour of Harvey . H e also p roposed a very r e m a r k a b l e experi­m e n t to prove Harvey ' s t heory by sugges t ing t h e in te rpos i t ion of a T-shaped g lass tube in to a vein a n d then to observe t h e d i rec t ion of blooflow e i the r d i rec t ly or by t h r o w i n g par t i c les in to t h e tube . F r o m J u n e o n w a r d s B e e c k m a n m a d e a g rea t n u m b e r of no tes a b o u t t h e consequences of Ha rvey ' s theory , bo th for physiology in genera l a n d for m e d i c a l p rac t i ce . The n e w theo ry for example offered B e e c k m a n t h e final so lu t ion of t h e « a t t r a c t i o h e p a t i s » of food f rom t h e in t e s t ine t o the liver, w h i c h s y m p a t h i c force h e a l r eady re fu ted f rom h i s m e c h a n i s t i c po in t of v iew in 1627. F u r t h e r m o r e , B e e c k m a n w a s a w a r e of t h e s ignif icance of t he n e w t h e o r y for t h e w o r k i n g of g lands , s t a t i ng t h a t in t h e case of t h e m a m m a r y g lands t h e a n a t o m i s t s shou ld inves t iga te t h e v a s c u l a r s y s t e m of t h e m a n d shou ld no t seek for a duc t be tween t h e u t e r u s a n d t h e b reas t . W i t h r e g a r d s to pa tho logy B e e c k m a n m a d e ex tens ive no te s abou t t h e imba l ance b e t w e e n a r t e r i a l o u t p u t a n d venous r e t u r n . I n t h e venous s y s t e m h e d i s t ingu i shed b e t w e e n the body veins a n d po r t a l s y s t e m on t h e point of t h e suckingforce of t h e r i gh t ven t r i c le a n d i ts d i s t r i b u t i o n b e t w e e n b o t h s y s t e m s . I n t h e field of t h e r ap y Beeck­m a n repea ted ly m a d e n o t e s in h is d ia ry . So for example h e re fu ted t h e u s e of purga t ives because the m a t e r i a peccans could no t r e a c h t h e in tes t ines by w a y of t h e venae m e s e r a i c a e a n d h e r e c o m m e n d e d t h e u s e of d iu re t i c s a n d d iaphore t i c s w h i c h w o r k by w a y of t h e a r t e r i a l sys t em. Cer ta in ly t h e m o s t s t r ik ing passage in Beeck-

103

m a n ' s d ia ry is t he proposa l for venous infusion, in wh ich h e sugges t s t h e i n t roduc ­t ion of m e d i c a m e n t s d i rec t ly in to t h e vein. This no t e is d a t e d May-June 1634 ; t h e f i rs t r e fe rence in l i t e r a t u r e t o infusion s t e m s f r o m Ma j o r a n d is d a t e d 1664.

I t m a y be c lea r f rom th i s very sho r t excurs ion i n t o B e e c k m a n ' s diary t h a t H a r v e y ' s t h e o r y w a s in tens ive ly d i scussed a t D o r d r e c h t f rom J u n e 1633 o n w a r d s . I t is a fair sugges t ion to r e l a t e th i s d a t e to the t i m e of t h e w r i t i n g of V a n Bever-wi j ck ' s De Calculo. B e t w e e n B e e c k m a n a n d V a n Beve rwi j ck t h e r e ex is ted a n i n t i m a t e re la t ionsh ip ; they b o t h belong to t h e br i l l iant scient if ic c o m m u n i t y a t Dord rech t . In pass ing I wou ld l ike to ind ica te the s t r o n g in t e re s t of th i s c i rc le for t h e w o r k of Daniel S e n n e r t (1572-1637). Agains t th i s b a c k g r o u n d it h a s to b e expla ined w h y H a r v e y in h i s l e t t e r to Van Beverwi jck speaks so explici t ly a b o u t S e n n e r t a n d even uses the pecu l i a r f o rmu la t i on « y o u r o w n S e n n e r t » ( S e n n e r t u s ves t e r »). Not only B e e c k m a n a n d Van Beverwi jck m e n t i o n e d S e n n e r t r epea ted ly in t he i r w o r k s , but a l so o t h e r m e m b e r s of t h e circle a t D o r d r e c h t w e r e occupied w i t h S e n n e r t ' s work , a m o n g w h i c h I t h ink of t h e poet-physician Daniel J o n c t y s (1611-1654), w h o e l abora t ed Harvey ' s t heo ry for t he opt ical t heory of e m a n a t i o n in a p o e m f rom 1639.

Let u s n o w t u r n t o the role of t he R o t t e r d a m phys ic ians in t h e ea r ly recep t ion of Ha rvey ' s theory . In R o t t e r d a m we find J acobus de B a c k (1593-1657) a n d Z a c h a r i a s Sylvius (1608-1664) as the m a i n p r o p o n e n t s of t he n e w theo ry of b l o o d m o v e m e n t . The f o r m e r is w e l l k n o w n for h i s Dissertation de Corde f r o m 1648 w h i c h w a s a d d e d t o t h e l a t e r ed i t ions of Ha rvey ' s De Motu Cordis. I n t h e preface to h is Dissertatio De B a c k tel ls u s t h a t a b o u t fifteen yea r s ago h e r e a d t h e book of H a r v e y for t h e f i r s t t ime . So once m o r e w e f ind 1633 as t h e d a t e of b e c o m i n g a c q u i n t a n c e d w i t h Harvey ' s theory . De B a c k sa id t h a t it took h i m so m u c h yea r s to o v e r c o m e w h a t h e descr ibes as t he d e s t r u c t e d o r d e r (« d e s t r u c t u m o r d i n e m »). I n th is w o r k h e w a s ass i s ted by Zacha r i a s Sylvius, k n o w n to t h e Eng l i sh speak ing w o r l d a s Z a c h a r i a h Wood, t h e a u t h o r of t h e Prefatio, in t h e 1648-edition a n d Eng l i sh t rans la ­t ion (1653) of Ha rvey ' s De motu cordis. As I h a v e po in ted ou t e l sewhere Sylvius , w h o se rved as a s c h o o l m a s t e r in t h e La t in School of R o t t e r d a m , p e r f o r m e d a cons ide rab le a m o u n t of t ex tua l c lar i f ica t ions in t h e 1628-edition of De motu cordis, a n d m u s t h a v e been persona l ly a c q u a i n t e d w i t h Harvey . I t m a y even b e possible t h a t H a r v e y v is i ted both Sylvius a n d De Back a t C h r i s t m a s 1636, w h e n Harvey , in t h e c o m p a n y of Lord Arundel , w a s wa i t i ng in t h e por t of R o t t e r d a m in o r d e r t o r e t u r n t o E n g l a n d .

Final ly , t h e ques t ion a r i ses if t he ear ly recep t ion in 1633, h a s any re la t ion w i t h o r inf luence on t h e recep t ion abroad . I a m re fe r r ing to E n g l a n d a n d F r a n c e . As far a s I k n o w the recep t ion in F r a n c e h a s no t yet been s tud i ed in m o r e deta i l . F r o m th i s a ccoun t of t he recept ion in Ho l l and one w o u l d expect t h a t if a s imi l a r s t u d y is t a k e n up in F r a n c e t h a t t h e co r r e spondence of F r e n c h sc ien t i s t s , especial ly of Gassend i a n d Mer senne , w i t h the r ep re sen t a t i ve s of the scient i f ic c i rc le in Dord rech t , wou ld h a r b o u r a g rea t deal of n e w m a t e r i a l . As to E n g l a n d I wou ld offer t he hypo thes i s t h a t George E n t (1604-1689) w a s no t only t h e s t a r t i n g point of m e c h a n i s t i c physiology in E n g l a n d w i t h h is Apologia of 1640, but h e w a s a lso a channe l for t h e ear ly m e c h a n i s t i c e labora t ion of Harvey ' s t heo ry f rom the D u t c h circle w i t h B e e c k m a n a n d Desca r t e s to Eng land . E n t a t t e n d e d the La t in School of R o t t e r d a m d u r i n g the yea r s (1620-1624) t h a t B e e c k m a n w a s t each ing the re , h e stil l v is i ted h is f o r m e r t e a c h e r a t t he end of 1627 a n d ce r ta in ly r e m a i n e d in c o n t a c t w i t h B e e c k m a n by co r r e spondence . A c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n E n t ' s Apologia a n d B e e c k m a n ' s Journal suppor t s in th is hypothes i s .

Wi th the foregoing I hope t o h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d s o m e n e w facts to t h e fasc ina t ing s to ry of t he recep t ion of Harvey ' s ideas , wh ich p r o b l e m requ i res howeve r stil l in tens ive r e s e a r c h of m e d i c a l h i s t o r i a n s .

104

R E F E R E N C E S

1. BAUMANN E. D. — Johan van Beverwijck in leven en werken geschetst, Dordrecht, J. P. Revers, 1910.

2. BROWN Th. M. — «Physiology and the mechanical philosophy in mid-seventeenth century England», Bull Hist. Med., 51 (1977), pp. 25-54.

3. GUBSER A. — « The Positiones variae medicae of Franciscus Sylvius », Bull. Hist. Med., 40 (1966), pp. 72-80.

4. DESCARTES R. — Treatise of Man, French Text with Translation and Commentary by Thomas Steele Hall, Cambridg, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1972.

5. LIEBURG M . J . van. — «Zacharias Sylvius (1608-1664), author of the Praefatio to the first Rotterdam edition (1648) of Harvey's De Motu Cordis », Janus, 65 (1978), pp. 241-257.

6. LIEBURG M.J . van. — « De dichter-medicus Daniel Jonctys (1611-1654), zijn strijd tegen het bijgeloof en zijn relatie tot Johan van Beverwijck, William Harvey en Daniel Sennert», T. Gesch. Geneesk. Natuurw. Wisk, Tech., 2 (1979), pp. 137-167.

7. LIEBURG M. J. van. — « Deutsche Studenten in Leiden (1628-1688) und die Einführung der Kreislauf lehre William Harvey's in Holland », in : M. J. van Lieburg and R. Toell-ner (eds), Deutsch-Niederländische Beziehungen in der Medizin des 17. Jahrhunderts (Amsterdam, Editions Rodopi, 1982), pp. 39-76.

8. LIEBURG M. J. van. — «Isaac Beeckman (1588-1637) and his diary-notes on William Harvey's theory on bloodcirculation (1633-1634) », Janus, 70 (1982), in press.

9. LINDEBOOM G. A. — « The reception in Holland of Harvey's theory of the circulation of the blood », Janus, 46 (1957), pp. 183-200.

10. SCHOUTEN J. — Johannes Walaeus, zijn betekenis voor de verbreiding van de leer van de blcedsomloop, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1972.

105