these be modern discoveries or derived from old foundations is disputed; nay, it is so too, whether they are true or no; for though reason may seem to favour them more than the contrary opinions, yet sense can hardly allow them, and to satisfy mankind both these must concur. But if they are true, yet these two great discoveries have made no change in the conclusions of Astronomy nor in the practice of Physic, and so have been but little use to the world, though, perhaps, of much honour to the authors.'[1] It is pleasant to notice that our old friend, Sir Thomas Browne, with his love of paradox, declared that he preferred the circulation of the blood to the discovery of America.
Of the reception of Harvey’s views in Holland and Germany there is nothing to add to the admirable account given by Willis. The early and strenuous advocacy o t Descartes must have influenced the Dutch physicians; but in this, as in so many other things, the infection of his early years proved too powerful, and he could not get rid of the ‘ancient spirits'. Of the discovery of the circulation he says [2] it is 4 la plus belle et la plus utile que Ton put faire en medecine'. 'Tout a fait contraire au sein (sic) touchant le mouvement du coeur,' which he held to be due to an ebullition of the spirits—a sort of ferment (espece de levain) existing in it. Much more actively discussed in Holland than elsewhere, the writings of Drake, Walaeus, Regius, Plempius, Sylvius, de Bach, Conringius, T. Bartholini (the Dane), and others threshed out the whole question very thoroughly, and their views, with those of Hoffman, Siegel, and others, are referred to by Willis and given in greater detail by Riolan.[3]
