work on Anatomy[7] six years after Servetus died, in which he shows that he clearly understood the valves of the heart, and describes the passage of the blood through the lungs. Columbus has been claimed as the real discoverer of the circulation and as having forestalled Harvey. But neither Servetus nor Columbus had any notion of the Greater or Systemic Circulation. And the latter actually says the heart is not muscular, and speaks of a to-and-fro movement of the blood in the veins. [5] Restitutio Christianismi, 1553. [6] Institutiones Anatomici, Epistola Nuncupatoria, 1539. [7] De Re Anatomica, 1559. But a third and much more serious precursor of Harvey as the discoverer has been brought forward in the person of Andreas Cæsalpinus[8] of Arezzo, justly renowned as the earliest of botanists. He actually used the word “circulation” in regard to the passage of the blood through the lungs. The claims of Cæsalpinus have been taken up with enthusiasm, not to say bitterness, in Italy; and in 1876 his statue was erected with much pomp and speechmaking in Rome, and an inscription placed upon it recording that he was the first discoverer of the circulation of the blood. It is much to be regretted that this display was not altogether free from a desire to depreciate Harvey. Wonder may well be expressed at this procedure, even after allowing for well-meant patriotic ardour, when it is learnt that in his works Cæsalpinus speaks of the arteries ending in nerves, of the septum of the heart being permeable, and its valves acting imperfectly, and of the veins carrying blood to the body for its nourishment. The statements made by Cæsalpinus, which at first sight point to his knowledge of the circulation, are altogether discounted on perusal of his works, and it becomes impossible to believe that he had any clear idea of the circulation as we understand it to-day. The misconception has no doubt arisen from the interpretation of isolated passages in the light of what we now know regarding the circulation. Moreover, it is impossible to believe, seeing how well the works of Cæsalpinus were known, that, had he ever been regarded as putting forward in them the doctrine of the circulation as we now understand it, such a new and startling view would not have attracted the attention of the distinguished anatomists who were his contemporaries or immediate successors. But that none of them ever for a moment saw any such doctrine in the works of Cæsalpinus is shown by their writings, and by the surprise with which Harvey’s discovery was received. [8] Quæstiones Peripateticæ, 1569. De Plantis, 1583.