The Natural Philosopher and the Microscope: Nicolas Hartsoeker Unravels Nature's “Admirable Œconomy”

Constantyn Huygens to Christiaan Huygens, Letter 2405, 25 October 1685, Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens, ix (The Hague, 1901); hereafter: OC, 36.

For scholarship on Nicolas Hartsoeker in Dutch and English, please refer to the seminal article by Wielema Michiel R. , “Nicolaas Hartsoeker (1656–1725): Van mechanisme naar vitalisme”, Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis der geneeskunde, natuurwetenschappen, wiskunde en techniek, xv (1992), 243–61; idem, “Hartsoeker, Nicolaas (1656–1725)”, in The dictionary of seventeenth and eighteenth Dutch philosophers, ed. by Van Bunge Wiep Krop Henri Leeuwenburgh Bart van Ruler Han Schuurman Paul Wielema Michiel , i (Bristol, 2003), 3 89–90. See furthermore, van Cittert-Eymers J. G. , “Hartsoeker (or Hartsoecker), Nicolaas”, in Dictionary of scientific biography, ed. by Gillispie Charles C. , vi (New York, 1972), 148–9. Historian of science Alice Stroup has examined Nicolas Hartsoeker's scientific and political espionage, and produced important contributions in English and French. See Stroup Alice , “Nicolas Hartsoeker, savant hollandais associé de l'Académie et espion de Louis XIV”, Cahiers d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences, no 47: De la Diffusion des sciences à l'espionnage industriel XVe-XXe siècle, ed. by Guillerme André (Paris, 1999); idem, “Science, politique et conscience aux débuts de l'Académie royale des sciences”, Revue de synthèse, cxiv (1993), 1993–53; and “Nicolas Hartsoeker: Savant, secret agent, man of conscience?”, Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the History of Science Society, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 12 November 1993. For the earliest contemporary article on Nicolas Hartsoeker to my knowledge, see Berkvens-Stevelinck Christiane , “Nicolas Hartsoeker contre Isaac Newton ou pourquoi les planètes se meuvent-elles?”, Lias, ii (1975), 1975–28.

Christiaan Huygens to Constantyn Huygens, Letter 2404, 23 October 1685, OC, ix (The Hague, 1901), 35.

Leiden University Library, Special Collections, Ms. Huygens 45, Letter 2122, fol. 2v, Nicolaes Hartsoeker to Christiaan Huygens, 12 April 1678. Hartsoeker asked Huygens whether he would be able to accompany him to Paris. See, OC, viii (The Hague, 1888), 70–71; and Stroup Alice , A company of scientists: Botany, patronage, and community at the seventeenth-century Parisian Royal Academy of Sciences (Berkeley, 1990), 203.

See ref. 1.

Constantyn Huygens to Christiaan Huygens, Letter 2188, 26 August 1679, OC, viii (The Hague, 1888), 206.

Stroup , A company of scientists (ref. 4), 53.

Stroup Alice , Royal funding of the Parisian Académie des Sciences during the 1690s (Philadelphia, 1987), 140–1.

Académie Royale des Sciences, Proces-Verbaux, tome 18, 12 November 1689–30 May 1699, 121.

van Bunge Wiep , From Stevin to Spinoza: An essay on philosophy in the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic (Leiden, 2001), 61. Ruestow Edward G. , The microscope in the Dutch Republic: The shaping of discovery (Cambridge, 1996), 61–68. van Berkel Klaas , “Intellectuals against Leeuwenhoek: Controversies about the methods and style of a self-taught scientist”, in Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, 1632–1723: Studies on the life and work of the Delft scientist commemorating the 350th anniversary of his birthday, ed. by Palm L. C. Snelders H. A. M. (Amsterdam, 1982), 187–209, pp. 200–4. Svetlana Alpers's argument for an art of describing that produced an objective, scientific narrative of nature further skews the picture of Dutch empirical investigations of natural particulars. See, The art of describing: Dutch art in the seventeenth century (Chicago, 1984), 1–25.

Zuidervaart Huib , “The ‘invisible technician’ made visible: Telescope making in the seventeenth and early eighteenth-century Dutch Republic”, in From Earth-bound to satellite, telescopes, skills and networks, ed. by Morrison-Low Alison D. Dupré Sven Johnston Stephen Strano Giorgio (Leiden/Boston, 2012), 41–102. For more on Descartes's own optical pursuits and relationship with lens makers, see D. Graham Burnett's seminal work, Descartes and the hyperbolic quest: Lens making machines and their significance in the seventeenth century (Philadelphia, PA, 2005).

Jorink Eric , “‘These wonderful glasses’: Dutch humanists and the microscope, 1620–1670”, in Who needs scientific instruments: Conference on scientific instruments and their users 20–22 October 2005, ed. by Grob Bart Hooijmaijers Hans (Leiden, 2006), 116.

Schuster John A. , “Rohault, Jacques (1620–1672)”, in Dictionary of scientific biography, ed. by Gillispie Charles C. , xi (New York, 1975), 506–9.

Jorink Erik , ‘Geef zieht aan de blinden’: Constantijn Huygens, René Descartes en het Boek der Natuur (Leiden, 2008), 40.

Jorink , ”‘These wonderful glasses’” (ref. 12), 116. See also Fournier Marian , The fabric of life: Microscopy in the seventeenth century (Baltimore, 1996), 201–2, and her chapter in From makers to users cited below (ref. 27).

Jorink , “‘These wonderful glasses’” (ref. 12), 115–19. See also, Jorink , “‘Outside God, there is nothing’: Swammerdam, Spinoza, and the Janus-face of the early Dutch Enlightenment”, in The early Enlightenment in the Dutch Republic, 1650–1750, ed. by van Bunge Wiep (Leiden, 2003), 81–107.

An example of liefhebberij in microscopes, burning mirrors, mathematics and astronomy is Rienk Vermij's wonderful article, “De Nederlandse vriendenkring van E.W. von Tschirnhaus”, Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis der geneeskunde, natuurwetenschappen, wiskunde en techniek, xi (1988), 153–78. See also, Keil Inge , “Microscopes made in Augsburg”, in From makers to users: Microscopes, markets, and scientific practices in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries = Dagli artigiani ai naturalisti: Microscopi, offerta dei mercati epratiche scientifiche nei secoli XVII e XVIII: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the History of Microscopy = Atti del Convegno internazionale di Storia delta microscopia (Milan, 13–14 Oct 2004), ed. by Generali Dario Ratcliff Marc J. , 43–71.

Goldgar Anne , Tulipmania: Money, honor, and knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age (Chicago, 2007), 11, 69. Cook Harold , Matters of exchange: Commerce, medicine, and science in the Dutch Golden Age (New Haven, 2007). Jardine Lisa , Going Dutch: How England plundered Holland's glory (London, 2008), 205, for example. Schama Simon , Embarrassment of riches: An interpretation of Dutch culture in the Golden Age (New York, 1987). Bredekamp Horst , The lure of antiquity and the cult of the machine: The Kunstkammer and the evolution of nature, art and technology (Princeton, 1993).

Cook , Matters of exchange (ref. 18), 81.

Goldgar , Tulipmania (ref. 18), 317.

Campbell Mary Blaine , Wonder and science: Imagining worlds in early modern Europe (Ithaca, 1999), 181. Alpers discusses how the microscope allowed viewers to become “unseen seers, eyes fixed to lenses or mirrors, catching sight of something otherwise unseeable that is unaware of their gaze”, The art of describing (ref. 10), 201. Eileen Reeves relates how “heavenly spectacles” exposed celestial bodies and sometimes “‘manifest absurdities’”. See, Painting the heavens (Princeton, 1999), 97.

For specific examples of microscopes in paintings, see Hartsoeker's portrait by Caspar Netscher in the Kurpfälzisches Museum in Heidelberg or at the Louvre, Paris or the portrait painting of (presumably) microscopist Nicolas Joblot by Constantijn Netscher in the State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. See, de Clercq Peter , “Two seventeenth-century Dutch portraits with optical and mathematical instruments”, Bulletin of the scientific instrument society, lxxxvii (2005), 4–6. See also the famous portrait, “Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek” by Jan Verkolje at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. On the celebration of lenses, microscopes and telescopes, see Constantijn Huygens's poem, Dagh-werck van Constantijn Huygens, ed. by Zwaan F. L. (Assen, 1973), commentary to II. 1140–57. Alpers offers her analysis, The art of describing (ref. 10), 15–18.

Connors Joseph , “Ars tornandi: Baroque architecture and the lathe”, Journal of the Warburg and the Courtauld Institutes, liii (1990), 217–36.

Here I'm specifically dealing with lens-making for instruments, not with spectacle-making, which had been practised since the Middle Ages.

Montias John Michael , Artists and artisans in Delft (Princeton, 1982).

Zuidervaart , ” The ‘invisible technician’ made visible” (ref. 11), 13.

Fournier Marian , “Personal styles in microscopy: Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam and Huygens”, in From makers to users (ref. 17), 212.

Hartsoeker Nicolas , Extrait critique des lettres de M. Leeuwenhoek in Cours de physique (Amsterdam, 1730; hereafter: Extrait critique), 44–45.

Vermij Rienk Atzema Eisso , “Specula circularia: An unknown work by Johannes Hudde”, Studia leibnitiana, xxvii/i (1995), 104–21, p. 107. For a discussion of Hudde's and Spinoza's collaborative lens making, see Klever W. N. A. van Zuylen J. , “Insignis opticus: Spinoza in de geschiedenis van de optica”, De zeventiende eeuw, vi (1990), 1990–63, especially pp. 54–55.

Keil , “McRoscopes made in Augsburg” (ref. 17), 55. See also Lindeboom G. A. , “Jan Swammerdam als microscopist”, Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis der geneeskunde, natuurwetenschappen, wiskunde en techniek, iv (1981), 87–110, p. 94.

Goldstein Rebecca , Betraying Spinoza: The renegade Jew who gave us modernity (Cambridge, 2001), 5, 222.

Vermij , “De Nederlandse vriendenkring van E.W. von Tschirnhaus” and Keil , “Microscopes made in Augsburg” (ref. 17). According to Keil, microscopy as an amateur or virtuoso pastime persisted well into the eighteenth century –- hence, the general term of amateur as Liebhaber in German, or liefhebber in Dutch. Note, for example, Conrad Cuno's 1685 pamphlet, Bericht an die Herren Liebhabere Optischer Kunst-Wercke…. See also, Zuidervaart Huib , ‘”A plague to the learned world’: Pieter Gabry, F.R.S. (1715–1770) and his use of natural philosophy to gain prestige and social status”, History of science, xlv (2007), 2007–326. See also, Zijlmans Jori , Vriendenkringen in de zeventiende eeuw: Verenigingsvormen van het informele culturele leven te Rotterdam (The Hague, 1999).

Zijlmans , Vriendenkringen in de zeventiende eeuw (ref. 32), 188.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 44. Hartsoeker –- born in Goudain 1656 –- lived with his parents in Alkmaar from 1661 to 1669 and then in Rotterdam from 1669 to 1674. A potential candidate for his “mathematics tutor” could be the Rotterdam mathematician Nicolaus Stampioen (The Hague [?], 1640; Rotterdam, 1731), ‘schout van Kralingen’. Nicolaus was the son of the better known mathematician Johan Jansz Stampioen de Jonge whom Constantijn Huygens Sr hired to instruct his eldest sons in mathematics and Descartes's philosophy. On this last point, see Dijksterhuis Fokko , “Stampioen Jr, Jan Janszoon (1610-after 1689)”, in The dictionary of seventeenth and eighteenth-century Dutch philosophers, ii (Bristol, 2003), 938–40; C. D. Andriesse, Huygens: The man behind the principle (Cambridge, 2005), 65–66; and C. Louise Thijssen-Schoute, Nederlands Cartésianisme (Amsterdam, 1954), 62, 74–79.

Constantyn Huygens to Christiaan Huygens, Letter 2389,27 June 1685, OC, ix (The Hague, 1901), 14.

Turner Anthony , “Microscopical advances: The posterity of Huygens's simple microscope of 1678”, ÉNDOXA: Series Filosóficas, xix (2005), 41–57, p. 55.

I'm borrowing Mike Mahoney's potent turn-of-phrase here out of its original context. Nonetheless, I believe an analogy between seventeenth-century canal engineers and microscopists in search of communities is pertinent here. Mahoney Michael S. , “Organizing expertise: Engineering and public works under Jean-Baptiste Colbert, 1662–83”, Osiris, xxv (2010), 149–70, p. 149.

Christiaan Huygens to Constantyn Huygens, Letter 2133, 11 August 1678, OC, viii (The Hague, 1899), 91.

Christiaan Huygens to Constantyn Huygens, Letter 2119, 26 March 1978, OC, viii (The Hague, 1899), 64–65.

Christiaan Huygens to Constantyn Huygens, Letter 1606, 14 October 1667, OC, vi (The Hague, 1895), 155, and also Letter 1638, 11 May 1668, 213.

Constantijn also ground lenses and was involved in appraising and testing new microscopical advances made by his brother, Hartsoeker, Rømer and other microscopists. See, for example, Constantyn Huygens to Christiaan Huygens, Letter 2144,27 October 1678, OC, viii (The Hague, 1899), 114–15.

For Huygens's connection to the Parisian Academy and instrument makers, see contributions in Taton René (ed.), Huygens et la France (Paris, 1982) and Bos H. J. M. Rudwick M. J. S. Snelders H. A. M. Visser R. P. W. (eds), Studies on Christiaan Huygens: Invited papers from the Symposium on the life and work of Christiaan Huygens, Amsterdam, 22–25 August 1979 (Lisse, 1980).

Christiaan Huygens to Constantyn Huygens, Letter 2142, 21 October 1678, OC, viii (The Hague, 1899), 112. The Huygens family had some reason to believe that especially the Dutch excelled at lens making, considering their early national tradition that started with lens maker Zacharias Janssen and included other internationally renowned microscopists Johannes Hudde, Cornells Drebbel, Jan Swammerdam and Baruch Spinoza.

Huygens Christiaan , “Extrait d'une lettre de M. Hvgvens de l'Académie R. des Sciences à l'auteur du journal, touchant une nouvelle maniere de microscope qu'il a apporté de Hollande”, Le journal des s&çavans, xxviii (15 August 1678), 331–2, p. 332.

Blankaart Steven , Collectanea medico-physica oft Hollands jaarregister der genees- en natuurkundige aanmerkingen van gantsch Europa, i (1680), 200–1. The journal also had a German edition from 1680 to 1690. For more on the editor of this journal, see van Ruler Han , “Blankaart, Steven (1650–1704)”, The dictionary of seventeenth and eighteenth Dutch philosophers, ed. by Van Bunge Wiep Krop Henri Leeuwenburgh Bart van Ruler Han Schuurman Paul Wielema Michiel , i (Bristol, 2003), 106–10.

Van der Pas P. W. , “Joblot, Louis”, in Dictionary of scientific biography, vii (Detroit, 1973), 110. See also Konanski Wlodimir , “Un savant barrisien précurseur de M. Pasteur: Louis Joblot, 1645–1723”, Mémoires de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-Duc, 3^e série, iv (1895), 205–333, p. 235. Even though Joblot was Professor of Mathematics at the Parisian Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, he was acquainted with both Hartsoeker and Huygens and his optical researches were also known at the Royal Academy of Sciences.

Jardine , Going Dutch (ref. 18), 267–8.

Mahoney Michael S. , “Drawing mechanics”, in Picturing machines, 1400–1700, ed. by Lefèvre Wolfgang (Cambridge, 2004), 281–306, pp. 304–5.

In the Journal des s&çavans, Christiaan Huygens described the new tiny bead microscope and the subsequent observations it enabled without mentioning Hartsoeker or anyone else by name. See Huygens , “Extrait d'une lettre de M. Hvgvens” (ref. 44), 331–2.

Huygens Christiaan , “Extrait d'une lettre de M. Hvgvens” (ref. 44), 331–2. Christiaan Huygens to Jean Gallois, Letters 2135–36, August 1678, OC, viii (The Hague, 1899), 96–99, and also Appendix N. 2137, 100–3. On where Huygens got his ideas in the development of the simple microscope, see Turner, “McRoscopical advances” (ref. 36), 43. For an account of the whole controversy, see Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 46–48, and Fontenelle, “Éloge de Monsieur Hartsoeker”, in Éloges des Académiciens de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, mort depuis l'an 1699, ii (Paris, 1766), 231–2.

Leiden University Library, Special Collections, Archieven van Senaat en Faculteiten der Leidsche Universiteit (ASF); the enrolment lists are called “recensielijsten” and span 1582–1877. Hartsoeker is listed in ASF inv. no. 45 (year 1675) through 51 (1681). He enrolled as a student in the faculty of philosophy, not medicine, on 7 October 1675 (as “Nicolaus Hardtsuiker”), and was registered every year after that until 1681. However, he is absent from graduation lists, and most likely never took his degree in Philosophy. I wish to thank Mr Ernst-Jan Munnik from Leiden's Special Collections who pointed me to the original manuscript enrolment lists. See also, Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae, MDLXXV-MDCCCLXXV (The Hague, 1875), 600.

On his marriage certificate of 1680, he styled himself as “Medicinen Doctor”. Even though Hartsoeker had studied medicine under Theodor Craanen, anatomy under Charles Drelincourt and philosophy under Burchard de Voider at Leiden University and later wrote on medical topics, he most likely never practised medicine. Rotterdamse Gemeente Archief, Rotterdam Stadstrouw, M, 1576–1811, Hartog Heijligers, Hartsoeker, Nicolaas.

Daumas Maurice , Les instruments scientifiques aux XVII^e et XVIII^e siècles (Paris, 1953), 44.

Christiaan Huygens to Constantyn Huygens, Letter 2446, 11 November 1686, OC, ix (The Hague, 1901), 112.

In 1670, De Voider asked the Curators of the university for permission to lecture on physics, teaching Institutiones logicae twice a week and the Institutiones physicae twice a week. When he came back from England in 1674, he petitioned the Curators for permission to teach a course in experimental physics. In a newly furnished auditorium –- the theatrum physicum –- De Voider and Senguerdius alternated conducting experimental demonstrations that became part of student training in philosophy. No doubt, Hartsoeker attended De Volder's demonstrations in experimental at Leiden University from 1675. See Molhuysen P. C. , Bronnen tot de geschiedenis der Leidsche Universitei, iii ('s-Gravenhage, 1918), 245 and Ruestow Edward G. , Physics at seventeenth and eighteenth-century Leiden: Philosophy and the new science in the university (The Hague, 1973), 96–106.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 45.

Huygens , OC, viii (The Hague, 1899), 101, note 5. Adriaen Paets was not only an ambassador, he was also a “liberal Remonstrant lawyer and defender of toleration”. See Colie Rosalie L. , Light and enlightenment: A study of the Cambridge Platonists and the Dutch Arminians (Cambridge, 1957), 96.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 46.

Ibid.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 46–47. See also Appendix to N. 2136 in OC, viii (The Hague, 1899), 98–99.

Hartsoeker to Huygens, Letter 2117, 14 March 1677, OC, viii (The Hague, 1899), 58–61.

In tracing the fascination with optics between Descartes and Constantijn Huygens Sr, Eric Jorink shows that such a practice was quite common. ‘Geef zieht aan de blinden’ (ref. 14), 27.

Constantyn Huygens to Christiaan Huygens, Letter 2764, 8 September 1692, OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 311.

Huygens reported to have perfected his own method over the course of three years in Paris. See Christiaan Huygens to Philippe de la Hire, Letter 2767, 9 October 1692, in OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 324.

OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 311 (Constantyn Huygens to Christiaan Huygens), 323–4 (Christiaan Huygens to Philippe de la Hire). Christiaan Huygens discussed and pictured in a letter to Constantijn his technique of grinding lenses using a lathe in Letter 2397, 6 September 1685, OC, ix (The Hague, 1901), 25–26.

Christiaan Huygens to N. Fatio de Duillier, Letter 2748, 5 April 1692, OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 278.

Christiaan Huygens to Philippe De la Hire, Letter 2767, 9 October 1692, in OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 323–4.

Fournier , The fabric of life (ref. 15), 219; Biagioli Mario , Galileo's instruments of credit: Telescopes, images, secrecy (Chicago, 2006), note on p. 130.

Ibid.

Biagioli , Galileo's instruments of credit (ref. 68).

Luisa Maria Bonelli Righini Van Helden Albert , Divini and Campani: A forgotten chapter in the history of the Accademia del Cimento (Florence, 1981).

The lens in question bears the inscription, “Nicolaas Hartsoeker fecit pro academia lugd. Batav lutet parisiorum 1688”, and is on display at the Museum Boerhaave in Leiden, object no. V09197. Another lens by Hartsoeker is preserved at the Utrecht University Museum.

Burchard de Voider to Christiaan Huygens, Letter 2537, 26 April 1689, OC, ix (The Hague, 1901), 316.

Christiaan Huygens to N. Fatio de Duillier, Letter 2748, 5 April 1692, OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 278.

Dear Peter , Discipline and experience: The mathematical way in the Scientific Revolution (Chicago, 1995), chapter 3.

Constantyn Huygens to Christiaan Huygens, OC (ref. 35).

Jean-Baptiste du Hamel to Christiaan Huygens, Letter 2390, 10 August 1685, OC, ix (The Hague, 1901), 15.

According to the editors of the Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens, this reference was most likely made to Nicolas Joblot, the brother of Louis Joblot, both of whom made lenses and were interested in optics.

Christiaan Huygens to Constantyn Huygens, OC (ref. 1).

Stroup , “Nicolas Hartsoeker, savant hollandais associé de l'Académie et espion de Louis XIV” (ref. 2), 217. See also King Henry C. , The history of the telescope (New York, 1955, repr. 2003), 60.

Hartsoeker Nicolas , Essay de dioptrique (Paris, 1694), 91.

Earlier examples in the chapter illustrate how the making of telescopic lenses was especially difficult. Many factors played a role: The time-consuming nature of polishing large lenses, the larger margin of error (because of a larger surface area) for finding blemishes in the glass or scratching the lens during polishing, etc.

Hartsoeker , Essay de dioptrique (ref. 81), 91–93.

Tripoli is a weathered and decomposed siliceous limestone; in powdered form, it is used in polishing.

Hartsoeker Nicolas , Eclaircissemens sur les conjectures physiques (Amsterdam, 1710; hereafter: Eclaircissemens), 162.

Christiaan Huygens on Hartsoeker's lens making technique, OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 311.

Hartsoeker Nicolas , “Extrait d'une lettre de M. Nicolas Hartsoeker écrite à l'auteur du journal touchant la maniere de faire les nouveaux microscopes, dont il a esté parlé dans le journal il y a quelques jours”, Journal des S&çavans, xxx (29 August 1678), 355–6.

For an account of the whole controversy, see Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 47–48, and Fontenelle, “Êloge de Monsieur Hartsoeker” (ref. 50).

Dijksterhuis Fokko Jan , “Constructive Thinking: A case for dioptrics”, in The mindful hand: Inquiry and invention from the late Renaissance to early Industrialisation, ed. by Roberts Lissa Schaffer Simon Dear Peter (Amsterdam, 2007), 75.

See, for instance, OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 289, where Constantijn instructed Christiaan Huygens not to make his method of grinding telescopic lenses public.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 7–8.

Ratcliff Marc J. , The quest for the invisible: Microscopy in the Enlightenment (Surrey, 2009), 27–28.

Hamou Philippe , La mutation du visible: Essai sur la portée épistémologique des instruments d'optique au XVIIe siècle, ii (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 2001), 159.

van Leeuwenhoek Antoni , Alle de brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, i (Amsterdam, 1939), Van Leeuwenhoek to Oldenburg, 26 March 1675, 293–5. I cite the published English translation from this edition.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek—Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, Ms. Lbr. 371, Hartsoeker to Leibniz, Düsseldorf, 15 February 1707, 15/27, p. 2. Hereafter: GWLB, Ms. Lbr. 371.

Hartsoeker to Leibniz, op. cit. (ref. 95), 25 November 1706, 25/11, p. 2.

Hartsoeker to Leibniz, op. cit. (ref. 95), 15 February 1707, 15/27, p. 2.

Hamou , La mutation du visible (ref. 93), 159. Hamou goes on to argue that Van Leeuwenhoek's attitude put him in, what he calls, ” The first period of visual empiricism” that started with Galileo, 160–1.

Hunter Michael , “Hooke the natural philosopher”, in London's Leonardo: The life and work of Robert Hooke, ed. by Bennett Jim Cooper Michael Hunter Michael Jardine Lisa (Oxford, 2003), 124.

Hunter , “Hooke the natural philosopher” (ref. 99), 108–9.

Dobell Clifford , Antony van Leeuwenhoek and his ‘little animals’ (New York, 1932), 70.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 3.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 17.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 7, 16.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 23.

Terrall Mary , “Frogs on the mantelpiece: The practice of observation in daily life”, in Histories of scientific observation, ed. by Daston Lorraine Lunbeck Elizabeth (Chicago, 2011), 185–203, p. 202.

The Extrait critique (ref. 28) is peppered with observations that are or should be “utiles” and others that are “inutiles”, etc. Hartsoeker was very much underlining the importance of “utilité” in microscopy and how Van Leeuwenhoek's work fell below this standard of usefulness in the advancement of the sciences.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 5.

Ibid.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 4.

Charles Dempsey made this point in an article on Caravaggio and his critics, who believed that Caravaggio “had deprived painting of art itself”, by stripping art of theory. I believe this point can be transposed to illuminate Hartsoeker's fundamental problems with Van Leeuwenhoek's micrography. Hartsoeker was bothered by the lack of a system, or of a theory that would harness and give order and reason to Van Leeuwenhoek's observations. Dempsey , “Caravaggio and the two naturalistic styles: Specular versus macular”, in Caravaggio: Realism, rebellion, reception, ed. by Warwick Genevieve (Delaware, 2006), 95–96.

Aristotle , The metaphysics, trans, by Tredennick Hugh (London, 1933), Book I, part I, 981b5–7.

Newman William R. , “Art, nature, and experiment among some Aristotelian alchemists”, in Texts and contexts in ancient and medieval science, ed. by Sylla Edith McVaugh Michael (Leiden, 1997), 305–17; idem, ” The corpuscular transmutational theory of Eirenaeus Philalethes”, in Alchemy and chemistry in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, ed. by Rattansi Piyo Clericuzio Antonio (Dordrecht, 1994), 161–82, pp. 174–5; and also, Gehennicalfire: The lives of George Starkey an American alchemist in the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, MA, 1994), 20–32, 155–8.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 13, 65.

Interestingly, historian Maria Rooseboom wrote the opposite about Van Leeuwenhoek's work: “Meanwhile our indefatigable microscopist continued his observations, carefully writing down any of his discoveries which he considered important. Only rarely did he deal with a single subject as a complete entity; again and again he [p. 33:] reverted to subjects dealt with in previous letters, until he felt that they had been fully and adequately discussed. As a result his letters often seem desultory to us, but Leeuwenhoek's investigations were far from unsystematic. For year after year he continued unswervingly the study of certain subjects, such as reproduction, steadily reporting his new findings as they arose”, in introductory chapter to Measuring the invisible world: The life and works of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek FRS, Abraham Schierbeek (London and New York, 1959), 32–33. Lisa Jardine also presents a more favourable picture of Van Leeuwenhoek's method and his Cartesian “mechanistic view of matter” in Ingenious pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution (New York, 1999), 96.

Bunge , From Stevin to Spinoza (ref. 10), 62.

Hamou , La mutation du visible (ref. 93), 160.

Hartsoeker Nicolas , Seconde partie de la suite des conjectures physiques (Amsterdam, 1712), 53–54.

“Oeconomy” (as in human or animal oeconomy) in works of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries referred to matters of general physiology. See Brown Theodore M. , ” The mechanical philosophy and the ‘animal oeconomy’: A study in the development of English physiology in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1968), iii–iv.

Hartsoeker to Leibniz, GWLB, Ms. Lbr. 371 (ref. 95), 29 March 1707, 14–15.

Ruestow , The microscope in the Dutch Republic (ref. 11), 280.

Hartsoeker , Eclaircissemens (ref. 85), 82.

Hartsoeker , Extrait critique (ref. 28), 57–58.

Hartsoeker , Eclaircissemens (ref. 85), 82–83.

Simon Schaffer relates how telescopic viewing of the sun produced the side effect of fantastical bright images and how microscopical observations gave Robert Boyle hope of getting at the “asperities” that produced colours. See “Regeneration: The body of natural philosophers in Restoration England”, in Science incarnate: Historical embodiments of natural knowledge, ed. by Lawrence Christopher Shapin Steven (Chicago, 1998), 92–93.

Hartsoeker , Eclaircissemens (ref. 85), 83.

Hartsoeker , Eclaircissemens (ref. 85), 175.

Hartsoeker Nicolas , Conjectures physiques (Amsterdam, 1706), 122; Eclaircissemens (ref. 85), 168, 173; and Hartsoeker to Leibniz, GWLB, Ms. Lbr. 371 (ref. 95), 15 February 1707, p. 15.

Hartsoeker , Conjectures physiques (ref. 128), 124.

Hartsoeker to Leibniz, GWLB, Ms. Lbr. 371 (ref. 95).

Hartsoeker Nicolas , Principes de physique (Paris, 1696), 95.

Hartsoeker , Principes de physique (ref. 131), 89. Image from Leiden University Library, 529 C 11.

Hartsoeker Nicolas , Suite des éclaircissemens sur les conjectures physiques (Amsterdam, 1712), 58.

Lüthy Christoph , “Where logical necessity becomes visual persuasion: Descartes's clear and distinct illustrations”, in Transmitting knowledge: Words, images, and instruments in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Kusukawa Sachiko MacLean Ian (Oxford, 2006), 103.

Clericuzio Antonio , Elements, principles, and corpuscles: A study of atomism and chemistry in the seventeenth century (Dordrecht, 2000), 190.

McRaelius Johannes , Lexicon philosophicum terminorum philosophis usitatorum ordine alphabetico sic digestorum, ut inde facile liceat cognasse, praesertim si tarn Latinus, quam Graecus index praemissus non negligatur, quid in singulis disciplinis quomodo sit distinguendum et definiendum (Jena, 1653), 269.

Goclenius Rudolph , Lexicon philosophicum quo tanquam clave philosophiae fores aperiuntur, informatum opera & studio Rodolphii Goclenii senioris, in academia Mauritiana, quae est Marchioburgi, Philosophiae Professoris primarij (Frankfurt, 1613 facs.), unpaginated.

Park Katharine , “Observation in the margins, 500–1500”, in Histories of scientific observation, ed. by Daston Lorraine Lunbeck Elizabeth (Chicago, 2011), 15–44, pp. 18–19.

Hartsoeker Nicolas , “Lettre de Mr Hartsoeker à l'Auteur de ces Nouvelles, contenant des Conjectures sur la Circulation du sang”, in Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, ii (1703), 153–8, p. 153.

Rohault Jacques , Traité de physique, ii (Paris, 1705, first edn in 1671), 216–17.

Rohault , Traité de physique (ref. 140), 319.

Schuster , “Rohault, Jacques (1620–1672)” (ref. 13), 506.

Hooke Robert (1705, p. 19) cited in Hunter , “Hooke the natural philosopher” (ref. 99), 122.

Hooke (1705, p. 331) cited in Hunter , “Hooke the natural philosopher” (ref. 99), 124.

Rogers G. A. J. , “Descartes and the method of English science”, Annals of science, xxix (1972), 237–55, p. 246.

Hartsoeker , Essay de dioptrique (ref. 81), 227.

Hartsoeker , Essay de dioptrique (ref. 81), 228.

Hartsoeker , Essay de dioptrique (ref. 81), 228–9.

Hartsoeker , Essay de dioptrique (ref. 81), 227. Image from Leiden University Library, 540 E 17.

Hartsoeker , Essay de dioptrique (ref. 81), 228–30. Image from Leiden University Library, 540 E 17.

Hartsoeker , Essay de dioptrique (ref. 81), 229.

Dawson Virginia Parker , Nature's enigma: The problem of the polyp in the letters of Bonnet, Trembley and Réaumur (Philadelphia, 1987), 45.

Hartsoeker , Essay de dioptrique (ref. 81), 230–2.

Stroup , “Nicolas Hartsoeker, savant hollandais associé de l'Académie et espion de Louis XIV” (ref. 2), 220–3.

Le Marquis de L'Hospital to Christiaan Huygens, 14 March 1695, OC, x (The Hague, 1905), 711.

Christiaan Huygens to Constantyn Huygens, OC (ref. 3), 34–35.

Dijksterhuis , “Constructive thinking” (ref. 89), 59–61. Dijksterhuis distinguishes categories within mathematical practitioners: “‘Géomètre’ would be more apt to address Christiaan Huygens, indicating his social status and denoting the more academic status of his amateur scholarship. The words ‘mathématicien’ and ‘géomètre’ connoted a clear social distinction between the thinker and the doer, between the disinterested and the professional pursuit of mathematics. Such a distinction ought not to be transgressed lightly”.

Stroup , “Nicolas Hartsoeker, savant hollandais associé de l'Académie et espion de Louis XIV” (ref. 2), 220.

Hartsoeker , Eclaircissemens (ref. 85), 125.

Dijksterhuis , “Constructive thinking” (ref. 89), 77.

Hartsoeker , Eclaircissemens (ref. 85), 110.

Hartsoeker , Suite des éclaircissemens (ref. 133), 55.

Descartes René , L'homme , in Oeuvres de Descartes, xi (Paris, 1996), 120; idem, Les principes de la philosophie, in Oeuvres de Descartes, ix (Paris, 1996), 321–2.

De Solla Price Derek , Gears from the Greeks: The Antikythera mechanism–-A calendar computer from ca. 80 B.C. (Philadelphia, 1974), 54–55.

Hartsoeker , Suite des éclaircissemens (ref. 133), 56.

Collins Randall , The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change (Cambridge, MA, 1998), 526–53.

Daston Lorraine , “Unruly weather: Natural law confronts natural variability”, in Natural law and laws of nature in Early Modern Europe: Jurisprudence, theology, moral and natural philosophy, ed. by Daston Lorraine Stolleis Michael (Farnham, 2008), 233–48, p. 247.