Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

too by the annual Harveian Oration, delivered at the College of Physicians in London, that our English physicians side with the latter; and Alma Mater is proud to admit him among her more illustrious sons. There is an original portrait of Dr. Harvey in the hall of Caius College; and an admirable portrait in Jesus College Combination-room, said to be one of Dr. Harvey a.

it to Harvey, being then a medical student in that University. Mons. Duten's Inquiry into the Origin of the Discoveries attributed to the moderns, ch. III.

Other foreign writers give the crown of correct experiment, clear knowledge, and full demonstration to our great anatomist. He published a discourse on the subject at Frankfort, in 1628; and in 1661 it was re-published at Rotterdam, entitled de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis, being the Anatomical Exercitations on which his theory is founded. It is accompanied with a preface, by an eminent Dutch physician, Dr. Andreas Sylvius, in the highest degree panegyrical, together with a treatise by another, Dr. Jacobus de Back, in the same strain, dedicated to Dr. Harvey; and in his Alloquium to the reader, Dr. Back speaks of Harvey, as Circulationis Sanguinis Authore.

Harvey's Exercitationes de Generatione Animalium, were first published during his life-time, by Dr. George Ent, his contemporary at Cambridge: and it is clear from Harvey's admirable preface, that he pursued the great principles of Bacon and Newton, as the foundation of science: yet was he not backward to acknowledge his obligations to those who preceded him. " Id ne fieret," says he, " aliorum, qui in hoc negotio mihi facem prætulerunt, insisto vestigiis; eorumq. (quoad licuit) utor verbis, prae cæteris autem Aristotelem ex antiquis; ex recentioribus vero Fabricium ab Aquapendente sequor; illum tanquam ducem; hunc ut Præmonstratorem." This curious book, illustrative occasionally of his great doctrine, the Circulation of the Blood, was republished at Amsterdam, in 1651.

The College of Physicians in London, so high a value did they put on Dr. Harvey's Works, published an Edition of them in 1767; and they possess a fine original portrait of him, by Theodore Jansen; to which, that in the Combination-room of Jesus College bears a striking resemblance.

[blocks in formation]

CHAP. XI.

REFLECTIONS ARISING FROM THE PRECEDING CHAP

TER, BEING APPENDIX II-PRESENT STATE OF THE PROFESSORSHIPS.

IN attempting to state within limits, which are necessarily so circumscribed, the rise and progress of literature and philosophy, in this ancient and learned institution, I have engaged, I perceive, in an arduous undertaking; and have endeavoured, therefore, to supply a lack of ability by additional industry; to make up for brevity of time, and narrowness of limits, by calmness of attention, and comprehensiveness of plan. It should be recollected, that I am not a professor, but an historian, and that only on a small scale: correctness, not depth is required: readers must look for a summary, not a detail. To speak ingenuously, I fell on the subject almost insensibly, at first, and advanced gradually without system, sensim sine sensu; till, at length, I found myself within an enchanted circle, out of which there was no escaping.

Had I not made one general appeal to the reader's indulgence, I should have found occasion for a particular one here: but a candour that is not puerile, acts with seriousness; and a judgment, which is not intemperate, will be tempered with candour; and to appeal to any other species of candour, or to any other species of judgment, would be trifling. Let it suffice. I proceed to general observations.

It is easy to condemn or to admire in the gross. This is the folly of weak minds, the disease of indolence, the self-idolizing affection of conceit and vanity.

Some years ago, the dispute concerning the superiority of the ancient or modern learning was a popular topic. In the reign of Charles II. when the Royal Society was established, Stubbs and Glanvile, and bishop Sprat*, compared the old and new philosophy, more particularly in reference to the state of that institution. In France the question was examined on a larger scale, in reference to the full extent of science. As the Royal Society originated with Oxford men, the question at first was discussed principally by members of that University; afterwards, it was taken up by writers who were members of the University of Cambridge. Sir William Temple was for giving the crown to the ancients; Dr. Wotton more generally to the moderns; and Mr. Baker thought there was not overmuch among either, or that we should have known better where to find it. Allusions have already been made to the two last. Bacon, too, we have seen, had some years before, not so much holden the balance of comparison, as given something of weight to that scale, where only it could be useful. And it was rather by the pointing out of defects, than dwelling on excellencies, that he improved philosophy.

In an historian, even this is not requisite. He may content himself with a less arduous, less inviduous task,

• Bishop Sprat wrote a History of the Royal Society. See part 2d..

P2

that of stating facts: and be his private judgment what it may, public facts are of the nature of general appeals: for the occasional interferences, actual establishments, or even experiments and attempts, made within a University, by those of their own body, and by royal or private patronage, ought to have, and with individuals, at least, will have, their proper authority.

It might have appeared, perhaps, rather popular to bring the question concerning literature nearer home, by enquiring, which of the two Universities, Oxford or Cambridge, had most excelled. For there is a spirit of rivalry, which is wont to pervade societies, as well as individuals: and he who gratifies an academical propensity, might, plausibly enough, presume on some prejudice in his favour. But on the other hand, those dissatisfied with the question, Which is the most ancient University ? might not have been warmed by the other, Which is the most excellent? They might have maintained, that the whole truth cannot be on both sides of the question, nor on either, though something of the truth might; and that if both Universities have had defects, both too have had excellencies.

It has been insisted on, by several members of this University, as a sort of fundamental in a literary society, that no restraint should be put on the human understanding. It is maintained by others, that no restraint has been laid here; and I am glad to hear it. Where should we have found Bacons and Newtons, and Bentleys, if their understandings had been held in leading-strings, by an obedience to the fancies of preceding ages?

We have taken a short view of our dark and scholastic ages of literature in the University. They are not the wise men of Cambridge, but of Goshen, who assert that in those

ages, Cambridge had nothing but dreams and drones. There was ample room for the entrance of succeeding philosophers; but Cambridge always had its great, and wise, and good men. In systems of science, even falsely so called, there are many sparks of truth, which, when elicited, may be concentrated, and become the light of future ages. Let us tread manfully, but not scornfully, over the sepulchres of our ancestors. Bacon not only improved upon the writings of the ancients, but, as before observed, was greatly indebted to them: the doctrine of Newton was not unknown to Empedocles, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotlea: by travelling more eastward, we shall find many doctrines, deemed more modern, there';

a Thus, in the formation of the world, Timæus the Locrian, is made by Plato, to maintain the two powers, projection and gravitation imposed by the Demiergus of Nature, ω ποτεμιξε δυο δυναμεις, αρχας κινασίων, τας τε ταυτω, και τας τω ετεξω· α και δυσμικτος εασσα, ουκ εκ τω ραζω εννεκιρνατο· λογοι δ' οιδε παντες εντι κατ ̓ αριθμους συγκεκαρμενοι· ως λογως κατα μοιραν διηρηκει ποτ' επιςαμαν' ως μη αγνοει εξ ων α ψυχα, και δι' ων, συνεσακει. Platon. Op. Edit. Steph. Vol. 2. p. 95, 96. I forbear quoting the other authorities: they may be seen in Dutens at large, B. 2, ch. 6. Though they are copied incorrectly, yet it will be seen from them, that the law of universal gravitation, if true, is no modern discovery; the demonstrations and explanations only are new: nor is the famous problem of Kepler's, in relation to the planets, concerning the inverse proportion of the quantity of matter, and the square of its distance; nor would Newton have claimed these as new discoveries, however some moderns have chosen to talk. See the authorities of the ancients on these subjects admitted and confirmed by Gregory and Maclaurin in Dutens as above.

That some other of the modern theories, claimed as discoveries by the moderns, were known to the ancients, see clearly shewn in Pliny's Natural History, lib. 2.

b I more particularly allude to the doctrine of Æther, as maintained by the ancient Chaldæans. See Stanleii Hist. Philosoph. Orient. by Le Clerc. lib. 1, s. 2, cap. xiii. xiv. and the Ζωροαστρα λογια, which, whether genuine or not, contain some fragments of their ancient philosophy.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »