Andrea Cesalpino and systemic circulation

Abstract

Although since the publication of the De motu Cordis in 1628 the majority of historians have considered William Harvey the discoverer of the blood circulation, a minority of authors have tried to show that the laurels belong instead to Andrea Cesalpino (c.1520-1603). Over the years,an endless number of points and opinions on the two sides of the question have been advanced and debated; the consensus today, however, is that Harvey deserves the credit and that Cesalpino's contribution was negligible. In an attempt to clarify the issue, the author has translated de novo, from the original Latin, all the passages of Cesalpinoconcerning the circulation and has reviewed the criticisms leveled at his ideas on the subject. The results are surprising on two accounts: first, the conclusion seems inescapable that this author, several decades before Harvey, had a clear general understanding of the circulation of the blood;second, the dismissal of Cesalpino's contribution was (and is) based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations.These, in turn, were the result, for the most part, of two factors: a) critics often did not read all the pertinent passages(possibly because his Latin prose is tedious and sometimes unclear); b) some passages were inaccurately translated. As for who discovered the circulation, it depends on how we define "discovery".