PART V.
PHYSIOLOGY.
Mr. Hackett, noticing the numerous allusions in Shakespeare to the blood, and to a circulation of this fluid to and from the heart or the liver, was led, in 1859, to express the absurd idea that William Shakespeare had anticipated Harvey in the discovery of the circulation of the blood.
Mr. Hackett found many thoughts in Shakespeare concerning the circulation which were applicable to Harvey’s theory.
Shakespeare died in 1610. Harvey first published his theory in 1619. It must be remembered that at this time many ideas were afloat concerning the circulation. Among the older theories were those of Hippocrates, Praxagoras, and Erasistratus, who held that the arteries contained air, and that, therefore, the veins were the only blood-holding vessels, and that they had their origin in the liver. Galen, the most celebrated of ancient medical writers, who lived as early as 150 A. D. taught that the left ventricle of the heart was the common origin of all arteries, and that the arteries of living animals contained blood, not air; but he did not advance with his studies so as to learn in what direction the blood flowed, or whether it was movable or stationary. The distinguished Michael Servetus, who was burned with his books, by order of Calvin, in 1553, taught that the blood flowed from the right ventricle, through the pulmonary artery to the lungs, and thence through the pulmonary vein and left auricle into the corresponding ventricle from which it was conveyed by the aorta to all parts of the body. Dr. Bucknill is of the opinion that Shakespeare followed Hippocrates in his theory that the veins were the only blood vessels and that they came from the liver. It is very evident, from the many allusions given below, that he did at different periods adhere to this belief.
The arteries or “air pipes” were supposed, according to this theory of Hippocrates, to contain an ærial fluid.
It is more reasonable to suppose that Shakespeare did not tie himself down to any one theory concerning the circulation, but that sometimes he had in mind the theory of Michael Servetus, (to which all the heart allusions will apply), and at other times that of Hippocrates, (which accounts for all the thoughts regarding the liver as the propeller of the blood through the veins). The immortal Harvey was the first to point out the true idea of the circulation: the idea that the blood was forced by the heart through the arteries, a pure live-supporting fluid; that it went to the extreme parts of the body, giving nutriment, taking up impurities, and then returning by way of the veins to the heart,—thence to the lungs to be purified before being again sent out on it’s life-sustaining journey. None of the quotations from Shakespeare express this idea, excepting perhaps one, and that rather vaguely.
We can not believe, however that he possessed the knowledge of Harvey’s theory, and can only say in his own words:
The physiology of the digestive system is excellently described in Coriolanus.
A few remaining physiological thoughts are interesting. As is well known, we are much better able to judge the size and distance of objects on the same level with us than we are when they are either above or below us. When we view objects from a height they appear much less than they would were we at the same distance from them on the same level. Shakespeare has beautifully shown this effect in King Lear.
The subject of pupillary reflexes has received mention by many of the older writers. It was a source of amusement to lovers in the old time to look into each others eyes in search of their own reflection.
Massinger—Renegado. Act II., Sc. IV.
It has been a view long held that the height of the forehead is an index of the intellectual character of the individual. Shakespeare has referred to this in several plays.
The old superstition that much hair on the head indicated a want of intellect is alluded to in Two Gentlemen of Verona.
He had some idea of the sympathetic connection between the organs of the body, and has furnished us with a good example of superstition connected with sympathy. It was an old superstition that the wounds of a murdered person would bleed afresh if the body was touched by the murderer, and this has nicely been brought out in Richard III.
Dunglison explains these superstitions “either on purely physical principles, or on the excited imagination of the observer,” and cites two interesting cases—one attested by John Demarest, coroner of Bergen county, New Jersey, (1767), and the other which occurred near Easton, Pennsylvania. Of the latter case he says: “The superstition has, indeed, its believers among us. On the trial of Getter, who was executed about five years ago (1833) in Pennsylvania, for the murder of his wife, a female witness deposed on oath as follows: ‘If my throat was to be cut, I could tell, before God Almighty, that the deceased smiled when he (the murderer) touched her. I swore this before the justices, and that she bled considerably. I was sent for to dress her and lay her out. He touched her twice. He made no hesitation about doing it. I also swore before the justice that it was observed by other people in the house.’” Dyer cites a number of similar cases, and quotes the following as a supposed cause of the phenomenon from the “Athenian Oracle,” (1-106): “The blood is congealed in the body for two or three days, and then becomes liquid again, in its tendency to corruption. The air being heated by many persons coming about the body is the same thing to it as motion is. ’Tis observed that dead bodies will bleed in a concourse of people, when murderers are absent as well as present, yet legislators have thought it fit to authorize it, and use this trial as an argument, at least to frighten, though ’tis no conclusive one to condemn them.” The practice, however, caused many an innocent spectator to receive the fatal penalty.