THE EARLY RECEPTION OF HARVEY'S THEORY ON … · the reception of the theory of bloodcirculation...
4
Marius VAN LIEBURG (Amsterdam, Netherlands) C43 THE EARLY RECEPTION OF HARVEY'S THEORY ON BLOODCIRCULATION IN THE NETHERLANDS In medical-historical literature it is generally stated that the acceptation of William Harvey's theory on bloodcirculation occurred in the Dutch Republic during the years 1637-1640. In that context the works of René Descartes (1596-1650) and Johan van Beverwijck (1594-1647) are always mentioned as the landmarks for the acceptation outside the universities, while in the academic field the teachings and writings of Johannes Walaeus (1604-1649) are considered to mark the beginning of the defence of the new physiological concept of bloodcirculation. In this bird-eye view of the early reception I hope to make clear however, that Harvey's theory was already discussed in the Netherlands at the latest in 1633. Three general remarks may precede this survey. Firstly, we have to maintain the distinction between the academic and non-academic area of reception, while espe- cially the universities had their own, predominantly resisting factors in the process of innovation. Secondly, it is noteworthy that the discussion outside the universities is (as we will see) almost fully concentrated in Dordrecht and Rotterdam, while from towns like Amsterdam of The Hague we have no evidence of early discussion of Harvey's theory. Aspects of local history, which certainly could elucidate this fact, must be passed over here. Thirdly, it is a strinking fact that also in the early discussions Harvey's theory itself obviously was easily accepted ; but the implica- tions for philosophical concepts, as well as for medical theory and practice in general, presented a barrier to public adherance. In connection with the assertion about the academic reception the wellknown story of the Swedish student Jakob Swab at Leyden may be recalled to mind, who in the spring of 1631 confronted his teachers with Harvey's De motu cordis, but who only received the advice to exercise the greatest prudence in correcting old medical theories. From the Positiones variae medicae, which Franciscus de le Boé, Sylvius (1614-1672) defended at Leyden University in July 1634, w e know that at least the pulmonary circulation of the blood was accepted, as Gubser has pointed out in 1964. After 1634 however there are no tidings from the Leyden University about Harvey's theory till 1640 w h e n Walaeus presented his opinion publicly. In that same year the universities of Utrecht and Groningen followed. Looking at the situation outside the universities we come across the commu- nication of Paul Marquard Schlegel (1605-1653), who tells us in the account of his journey through Holland between 1631 and 1634 that he could not remember to have met any physician who objected to Harvey's theory. Here the question must be put as to whether Schlegel's statement is supported by other sources. In the case of the mentioned sources from Descartes and Van Beverwijck, most authors have committed a methodological error by only looking at the date 102
Transcript of THE EARLY RECEPTION OF HARVEY'S THEORY ON … · the reception of the theory of bloodcirculation...
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
