was not invariably associated, even in himself, with bodily activity.
And he must have recognised the great distinction between the
intelligent acting of man and the instinctive behaviour of the lower
animals. There was something in man that was not in the brute.
Thus the first physiology, borrowing its ideas and methods from the
first physics, was, like the latter, a mechanical science. After
Galileo and Torricelli came Borelli with his purely mechanical
conceptions of animal movement, and of the blood circulation,
introducing even then mathematics into biology. There was no chemistry
in these speculations, though Basil Valentine and Paracelsus and
Van Helmont had preceded Descartes and Borelli. This chemistry was
mystical, and though chemical reactions had been studied in the
organism, they were supposed to be controlled by spiritual agencies,
the “archei” of the first bio-chemists. But that notion was to
disappear, and with Sylvius the conception of the animal body as a
chemical mechanism arose. All that was valuable in Van Helmont’s
chemistry was taken up by Sylvius, but in his mind the fermentations of
the older chemists were sufficient in themselves without the mystical
“sensitive soul” and “archei.” With Sylvius and Mayow physiology
became based upon chemical discovery and again became mechanistic, and
remained so until the time of Stahl, when chemical discovery attained
for the time its greatest development.
The seventeenth century ended with the work of Stahl. It is well
known to students of science how the views of this great chemist
sterilised chemical investigation almost until the time of Lavoisier.
The notion of phlogiston as an active constituent of material bodies
entering and leaving them in their reactions with each other was a
clear and simple one, and it served as a working hypothesis for the
chemists who immediately followed Stahl. It was, of course, a false
hypothesis, and retarded discovery to the extent that the greater part
of the eighteenth century is a blank for chemistry, when compared with
the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Deprived therefore of the
stimulus afforded by new physico-chemical methods of investigation,
physiology ceased to maintain the progress it had made during the
previous century, and the only great name of this period is that of
von Haller. Comparative anatomy, and zoological exploration, on the
other hand, made enormous advances, and for these branches of biology
the eighteenth century was the great period. It was the period of the
historic vitalistic views--vital principles, and vital and formative
forces. Stahl’s teaching dominated physiology just as it did chemistry.
Chemical and physical reactions occurred in the living body just as
they did in non-living matter, but they were controlled and modified by
the soul, or vital principle. It has been said that Stahl’s vitalistic
teaching retarded the progress of physiology, but it does not seem
clear that this was the case.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account