Here we see that the rapid renewal of the blood in "every part and member of the body" presented itself to Harvey's own mind as calling for some other explanation than the simple feeding of the tissues. The question of "_cui bono_" which his discovery raised is still but incompletely answered; in Harvey's day it was almost unanswerable. In dealing from time to time with its main features he himself, as we shall see, could only bring forward inadequate observations and shift his ground from one erroneous doctrine to another. In justice to his opponents, who seem to us so unreasonable, let us remember how prodigious this new question of "_cui bono_" must have seemed when the circulation itself was a novelty. Let us remember also that for nearly two thousand years the tissues had been held to feed themselves tranquilly out of the contents of the vessels in a way fitly expressed by the old simile of irrigation ditches in a garden--a simile which Aristotle and Galen had borrowed in turn from Plato.[11] But if Harvey saw only too well that the feeding of the tissues could not explain the circulation, he had at least seen plainly how the doctrine of the circulation clarified the ancient but current doctrine as to the absorption of the digested food. The portal vein had been accepted as the route of this absorption. No doubt both Aristotle and Galen had seen its ruddy contents; at any rate both had concluded that the chyle was changed within the portal vein into a crude approximation to blood.[12] That the same vessel should carry to the liver altered chyle, and from the liver blood to nourish the stomach and intestines, had involved a difficulty which Galen had met with characteristic cleverness. He had cited in support of such a reversal of flow the flow of the bile into the gall-bladder and out by the same duct, the movement of food and vomit into and out of the stomach by the œsophagus, and the relation of the _os uteri_ to impregnation and parturition.[13] Harvey says:--