William Harvey's natural philosophy

The reception of Harvey's doctrines of the movement of the heart and of the circulation of blood was the result of a complex interaction of intellectual, political and social factors. As French's book shows, Harvey's views were not simply accepted or rejected; they were interpreted-and often misunderstood-in the light of different philosophical and religious ideas. In university faculties and colleges of physicians, in both Catholic and Protestant countries, the defence of tradition, order and stability was often invoked against Harvey. The story was, however, a complex one and it is the merit of French to give a comprehensive and detailed account of the reception of Harvey's discoveries in England and on the Continent. Early reactions in England were somewhat embarrassing to Harvey, who saw his views defended by Fludd, the Rosicrucian, and attacked by Thomas Winston, censor of the London College of Physicians, a position which Harvey himself had occupied. One of the arguments against Harvey often employed by his opponents was that circulation had no practical significance in medicine. As French argues, Harvey made little attempt to meet this criticism, since he considered his discoveries as part of natural philosophy, rather than of medicine. Philosophical issues became immediately associated with Harvey's discoveries. Ent and Glisson played a prominent part in the production of consensus in England. The former's defence of Harvey became part of his fight for mechanical philosophy-which Harvey never subscribed to. Glisson, as French shows, adopted the theory of circulation, but departed from Harvey's view, as he developed it in connection with the notion of active matter and spirit. In Holland Harvey's discoveries became an integral part of Cartesian medicine, and, as such, they were contentious. In France Riolan championed the anti-Harvey reaction which prevailed both in Paris and Montpellier. Riolan's changing positions on circulation are thoroughly investigated by French up to Riolan's final partial admission of blood circulation. Both the German and Italian stages are closely investigated by the author, who aims to understand discussions of circulation in the institutional and religious context. French's analysis is, however, not free of unproved assumptions and oversimplifications. For example, he claims that the Protestant Sennert-whom he styles a "fundamentalist" (p. 226)-reformed medicine, "introduced chemistry in its Paracelsian and Protestant form in Wittenberg" (pp. 224-5), and ruled out Greek leaming as pagan. Unfortunately, this interpretation is not correct, since Sennert advocated a moderate position in medicine and natural philosophy, as attested by his wellknown De chymicorum cum Aristotelicis et Galenicis consensu ac dissensu, which makes it clear that he aimed at reconciling chemistry with Aristotelianism and Galenism. Sennert also criticized Paracelsus and adopted some crucial aspects of Aristotelian philosophy. In his informative study of Marco Aurelio Severino, the Neapolitan physician who supported Harvey's doctrines, French states that "It was undoubtedly because Severino explicitly denied the truth of Aristotle's natural philosophy that he was unable to publish in Italy" (p. 241). It is true that Severino's Zootomia democritaea was not published in that country, but his Vipera pithia was published in Padua in 1650 and his Antiperiatias. Hoc est adversus Aristoteleos ... was published in Naples in 1655-1659. One has the impression that French overstresses the power of religious control in seventeenthcentury Catholic countries, which in fact was not as tight as he asserts. After all the antiAristotelian philosopher Patrizi was invited to teach in Rome, and Severino himself was employed by the Neapolitan authorities during the plague.