Prioreschi P
Department of Pharmacology, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178, USA.
Ann Pharm Fr. 2004 Nov;62(6):382-400. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4509(04)94332-5.
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".
尽管自1628年《心血运动论》出版以来，大多数历史学家都认为威廉·哈维是血液循环的发现者，但仍有少数作者试图表明，这一殊荣应归于安德烈亚·切萨皮诺（约1520 - 1603年）。多年来，关于这个问题的双方提出了无数的观点并进行了辩论；然而，如今的共识是，哈维应获此赞誉，而切萨皮诺的贡献微不足道。为了澄清这个问题，作者从原始拉丁文重新翻译了切萨皮诺所有关于血液循环的段落，并审视了针对他在该主题上观点的批评。结果在两方面令人惊讶：首先，似乎不可避免地得出这样的结论，即这位作者在哈维之前几十年就对血液循环有了清晰的总体认识；其次，对切萨皮诺贡献的否定过去（现在也是）基于误解和错误解读。反过来，这些在很大程度上是由两个因素导致的：a）批评者常常没有阅读所有相关段落（可能是因为他的拉丁文行文冗长且有时晦涩）；b）一些段落翻译不准确。至于谁发现了血液循环，这取决于我们如何定义“发现”。
