Quick, answer this question without Googling: which organ did we think was the seat of emotions, cognition, and even the soul for most of the history of humanity? If your answer was: the brain, you need to read books like this one. If you answered: the heart, you deserve a treat for being so good at trivia.
For us in the modern era, with all the knowledge and high-res imaging we have of the brain, it's hard to envision any other organ than this being the chief one, the headquarters, the important hub that controls and manages the rest of the body. But up till the 17th century, the heart had the position the brain holds now. And it hasn't lost it, not entirely.
Think of our language. Do you say "I love you with all my brain"? No, you love with all your heart. So many words and expressions about emotions and feelings and cognition still place the heart at the centre: heartless, heartwarming, hard-hearted, heartthrob, heartbreak, heartfelt, heartache, cold-hearted, disheartened, softhearted, heartsick, openhearted, kindhearted, halfhearted, stouthearted, chickenhearted, heavy-hearted, wholeheartedly, fainthearted . . . Metaphorically and symbolically, the heart remains King of the Organs today. When we point at ourselves to say "me," we don't point to the head; we point to the chest, where the heart is.
In this fascinating book, Dr Figueredo, an experienced cardiologist, tells the history of how the heart came to be regarded so highly for so long and why it's time to reconsider its current role as a mere pump with nothing else to it than a complicated mechanism to keep blood flowing around the body. In five well-organised chapters with subheaders and neatly divided by topic, he starts with the view in Classical Antiquity that was shaped majorly by Egyptian and Greek physicians, always keeping in mind that whilst this does mention other cultures like the Mesopotamian, Chinese, Mesoamerican tribes, Islam, etc., this is mainly focused on the West and Western medicine as well as the cultures that influenced the West's ideas and scientific theories on the heart. In Antiquity, the mainstream theory was cardiocentrism, which posited that the heart was where emotions and cognition originated, and where the soul inhabited, whilst the brain was just a mucus-producing organ. Later in Antiquity, there appeared cerebrocentrism, which gave the brain the place of originator of emotions and cognition. Hippocrates was the star of the cerebrocentrists and Aristotle of the cardiocentrists, a scientific dispute the latter won in the long run because his theories, elaborated on and perfected by the Romans and disseminated by the Catholic Church after the Fall of Rome, became the standard.
That was the most fascinating chapter for me personally. Then came the Middle Ages and Renaissance, which Figueredo deals with in the second chapter, talking about the progress made on the study of the heart, which mostly had to do with understanding its functions and physiology better thanks to more careful dissections, greater anatomical understanding and more accurate description of its physiology. The most interesting parts here are about the Renaissance, when artists had to go to dissections by physicians to understand anatomy better to paint or sculpt the human body accurately, or even performed the dissections themselves. Leonardo da Vinci was one such artist that went to dissections and drew the human anatomy accurately; he's credited with being the first one to detect and describe atherosclerosis (cholesterol plaque hardening the heart's arteries). Like him, other artists did the same, which probably accounts for the beautiful and often wildly accurate art from the Renaissance.
But, this chapter is also where the more inaccuracies are. Not anatomical nor scientific, no, I have nothing to reproach the book for in that regard because it's written by someone who knows its subject inside and out, and far better than me, too. It's the historical inaccuracies that bothered me. Some minor, like the mistake of calling Chaucer "Gregory" when his name was Geoffrey, and some more significant like that scientific progress "stopped for a thousand years." I'm sorry, but this is a myth that's repeated over and over with little evidence if any, and so pervasive that it's pop culture knowledge everywhere and never challenged. No, scientific progress didn't just disappear when Rome fell and then magically reappeared in the Renaissance. That's not how history works, any history buff knows that. And that's not how scientific progress works either, and as a scientist, the author should've known. Scientific progress can slow down for a variety of reasons, sources like papers and laboratory logs and libraries can be destroyed, there might be little progress in one scientific field and impressive leaps of progress in another, etc., plus reputable historians have been saying for long that the Middle Ages weren't "dark" and that yes, there was scientific progress during the Middle Ages, more in number and quality than average readers (and most scientists with no formation in history) might be aware of. And besides, it's so easy-peasy and neat to lay the corpse at the feet of the Catholic Church, repeating the whole Galileo affair (which wasn't even during the Middle Ages and had politics involved that's conveniently ignored) as gospel. This book literally says the lack of scientific progress for a millennium was the Catholic Church's fault, which is an extraordinary claim and a very questionable one, but not new nor started by Figueredo, who's only repeating it (but in other parts of the book, he mentions scientific progress that took place in the Middle Ages, so...). The Catholic Church's list of sins is very long and atrocious, and documented enough, but stopping scientific progress for 1,000 years isn't one of them, and anyone that says so needs to at the very least provide very solid evidence, which isn't found here.
Chapters three and four are about the heart in art and facts about the heart and its functions as we know them today. From the former, the history of how we came to have the heart shape we all now use even in emojis came into existence was the most engrossing. The next chapter is basic biology of the heart, the kind you'd learn about in school, informative but not exactly very amenable. You'd think it should've been at the start of the book, but this is chronological and what's known about the heart and the tech & treatments we have now weren't known; it's all meant to show how far we've progressed, though it gets repetitive at times.
The last chapter recovers the book's engrossing factor again, at least for me. It's about modernity and the heart. The topic that caught my eye the most was the argument for a revision of the still common idea that the heart is just a blood pump. Here, Figueredo talks about those cases that make you think that perhaps the ancients had a point with all their theories about the heart being the seat of emotions and the soul, things like that lady who got the heart from a young boy in a transplant and acquired his tastes in food and such, or the phenomenon all elderly care nurses and doctors know well: lifelong couples dying within months, even days, of each other due to "heartbreak." (Incidentally, the heart can, in fact, be physically broken, from stress for example. Rare, but can happen, Dr Figueredo says). This heart-brain connection definitely does need to be reassessed, and hopefully it will as our understanding of how organs are interconnected and not isolated deepens.
It was an enjoyable read overall, I learnt a few things about my little heart.
I received an ARC via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.