Having now disposed of the claims that have been set up in behalf of one or another as the discoverer of the circulation, and shown, we trust satisfactorily, that these are all alike untenable, we should now proceed to discuss the question of the cui bono?—but this meets us in so forbidding an aspect, brimful as is our mind with a sense of the all-importance of the knowledge we had from Harvey, and seems so little to belong to our subject, that we gladly pass it by unnoticed; though it be only to find ourselves encountered by that other topic, but little more congenial to our mood of mind and intimate persuasion: The merit of Harvey as a discoverer. Few, very few have been found to question this; but as one man of undeniable learning and eminence in his profession,[1] has very strangely, as it seems to us, been led to do so, it will not be impertinent if we cast away a few words on this matter.
Discovery is of several, particularly of two kinds: one sensible or perceptive; another rational or inductive; the former an act of simple consciousness through an impression made on one or more of the senses; the latter a conclusion come to by the higher powers of the understanding dealing with data previously acquired by the senses and perceptive faculties.—We look through a telescope, for example, and we perceive a star which no one else had seen before; we note the fact, and so become discoverers of a new star. The merit here is not, surely, very great, though the added fact may be highly important. Again, one of the planets is subject to such perturbations in its course that to compose exact tables of its orbit is held impossible. These perturbations are referable to none of the known perturbing causes. A great astronomer suggests the influence of an exterior and unknown planet as their cause. A
- ↑ Dr. William Hunter. Introductory Lectures, p. 59, (4to. Lond. 1784,) to which the reader is referred for a singularly inconsistent and extraordinary string of passages.
