English physician William Harvey, who discovered blood circulation in living organisms, is deservedly considered one of the greatest minds in the history of scientific knowledge. He gained fame as the “Circulator of the Lesser World” during his lifetime. On the eve of the 400th anniversary of the publication of his book De motu cordis, there is a good reason to revisit the history of his discovery and the question of how it was received. The article shows that the traditional view of Harvey as a modern-type scientist and the founder of modern physiology, who rejected the prejudices of ancient teachings, was formed mainly under the influence of historical and scientific research carried out by doctors and physiologists. Since the 1970s, there has been a shift in perceptions of Harvey, which has made it possible to return to the real, “historical” Harvey — a follower of Aristotle and his philosophical study of the soul. An analysis of Harveys own works shows that he really did perceive all his work as the implementation of a research program outlined by Aristotle. One of the interim results of this work was the discovery of “circulation.” In addition, the article shows how Descartes and philosophers associated with the Oxford circle and the Royal Society of London received Harveys “circulatory” idea. Thanks to the efforts of these intellectuals in the second half of the 17th century, Harveys “circulation” came to be interpreted as a mechanical process comparable to other natural phenomena. Descartes and experimental philosophers completely eliminated the psychological dimension from the problem of blood circulation and the associated vitalism, replacing it with a mechanism more familiar to us. Through this same substitution of philosophical positions, they laid the groundwork for later physiological and historical-scientific interpretations of Harvey.
Dmitriy Mikhel (Wed,) studied this question.