Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His "Little Animals" by Clifford DobellReview by: Charles A. KofoidIsis, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Apr., 1934), pp. 216-218Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/224820 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 22:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.78 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2i6 ISIS, XXI, I

Clifford Dobell.-Antony van Leeuwenhoek and his " Little Animals," being some Account of the Father of Protozoology and Bacteriology and his multifarious Discoveries in these Disciplines, collected, translated, and edited, from his printed Works, unpublished Manuscripts and contemporary Records. Published on the 3ooth Anniversary of his Birth. VIII+435 P., 32 PlS., 4 figs. in text, HARCOURT, BRACE & CO., New York, 1932. Price $ 7.50.

This up-to-date interpretation of the actual discoveries of this pioneer Dutch microscopist among microscopic organisms has the indispensable prerequisite that the interpreter is himself familiar with the organisms concerned, with their sources, and their behavior. He is therefore in a position to understand what LEEUWENHOEK in his curiously restricted vocabulary attempted to describe and what his translators into Latin and English, who presumably were unfamiliar with the strange little animals which he had discovered, were transcribing into other tongues. The De Re Metallica of AGRICOLA had many translators before a mining engineer and his helpmate with the assistance of Latin scholars made this mediaeval treatise on ancient mining intelligible to the engineers and scholars of today.

Mr. DOBELL has rendered a real service to the history of science by his scholarly treatise in English which provides critical translations of those parts of LEEUWENHOEK'S writings which deal with Protozoa and Bacteria and discussions of mooted or obscure points which elucidate his conclusions. Another considerable service rendered is his ferreting out the facts regarding the life of this obscure draper and Chamberlain of Delft, and of revealing somewhat of the character of this inquisitive and secretive user of the microscope.

Among the useful contents of the book is a table of Memorabilia, in which the correct dates, all in new style, of the more significant events in the life of LEEUWENHOEK are recorded. The transition from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar was in progress, though not simul- taneously in Holland (I582 in Delft) and England (I752), during LEEUWENHOEK'S life.

Visitors to Delft have found a bronze effigy marking the place where LEEUWENHOEK was supposed to have lived and worked, on which the discovery of the Infusoria is noted with the date of I676. Our biographer states that the site is incorrect and records the date of the discovery of the Infusoria as I674.

LEEUWENHOEK had the spirit of the explorer, the creative imagination of the experimentalist, and the quantitative urge of the mathematician. These qualitites were combined with an inveterate and successfully maintained secretiveness and an itch for notoriety. The first named

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.78 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 217

qualities made him the discoverer of the Protozoa and the Bacteria, of Capillary circulation, of parthenogenesis in Aphids, and of budding in Hydra. They led to his search for animalcules in strange places and varied and seemingly absurd substances, to microscopical observations on insects, rotifers, vinegar eels, blood corpuscles, spermatozoa, and exploding gunpowder. He discovered animalcules in his microscopical search for the reason why pepper is hot !

As a scientist he lacked general concepts and any sense of the relations of his discoveries. His writings are tiresome because of repetition and discontinuity. He had more of a childish glee over the novelty of his discoveries than an appreciation of their significance.

DOBELL critically surveys in his Envoy LEEUWENHOEK'S place in the history of science. He was not the father of micrography. BOREL, POWER, HOOKE, and MALPIGHI have at least as good or a better right to this title. lie was not the inventor of the microscope, and it might also be said that he made no improvements in it. He used only a simple lens. He can hardly be called a father of biology, for his contributions are detailed observations rather than basic ideas. He has, however, some right to be called the father of cytology, histology, haematology, or the first milk-analyst, but preeminently the father of protozoology and bacteriology.

DOBELL'S criticisms of LOFFLER'S and SINGERS' later support of

KIRCHER'S claims to the discovery of bacteria in rotting bodies seem rather overstressed than convincing. They are enveloped in a haze of dust stirred up about KIRCHER in general. He quotes KIRCHER (1658) as saying " all decomposing things swarm with an innumerable brood of worms invisible to the naked eye: which even I myself would never have believed, had I not proved it by repeated experiment over many years." He then remarks " Now this passage contains no obvious reference to any organisms other than worms or insects-well known to everybody at the time when KIRCHER wrote... Any ordinary person would conclude that KIRCHER never described bacteria for the simple reason that he never saw them."

Now KIRCHER'S microscopes were apparently as good as LEEUWENHOEK 'S

simple lenses, though DOBELL states that " there is good reason to believe that KIRCHER possessed no instruments capable of showing any objects of the order of magnitude of common bacteria." Unfortunately what this good reason is remains unexplained. One has merely to accept the authority of the writer, a reprehensible practice on the part of KIRCHER, as DOBELL So clearly and forcibly demonstrates in his characterization of this Jesuit priest. KIRCHER'S explicit statement in the passage quoted may be a fabric of lies, but DOBELL's heated assertions that

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.78 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 I 8 ISIS, xxi, I

KIRCHER never saw bacteria seem to be inadequately supported. The completeness of DOBELL'S treatise is shown in his Elucidations

and Annotations, which cover such subjects as LEEUWENHOEK'S name, language, microscopes and methods, dwelling, draughtsmen, portraits, and seals. There is a brief list of LEEUWENHOEK manuscripts, and a bibliography of twenty-nine of his major publications. A bibliographical list of references and sources covers twenty-three pages annotated as to the author's opinion of the value or worthlessness of the contribution.

All students of the history of science will always be deeply indebted to the author of this painstaking and laborious study of a subject so important in relation to the newer disciplines of the biological sciences and of medicine and for the sympathetic presentation of this picturesque figure and his little animals.

lpril I9, I933. CHARLEs A. KOFOID.

Conway Zirkle.-Some forgotten records of hybridization and sex in plants, I7I6-I739. Journal of Heredity (Organ of the American Genetic Association), Washington, D.C., November, I932, vol. 23,

432-48, 3 portraits. This short and unpretentious paper is a notable contribution to the

history of botany and also to the history of science in England and in the American colonies in the first half of the eighteenth century.

It deals mainly with i. COTTON MATHER (I663-1728), 2. THOMAS

FAIRCHILD (I667 ?-I729), 3. PHILIP MILLER (I691-I77I), 4. PAUL DUDLEY

(I675-I75 I), 5. JAMES LOGAN (I674-I75I), 6. JOHN BARTRAM (I699-I777). Portraits are given of I, 4, and 5 It is a pity that the author did not include more information on the lives of these distinguished men, for botanists, even the American and English ones, may not know much about them. As to continental botanists it is probable that they know nothing of them. Notices on I, 2, 3 and 5 may be found in the (English) Dictionary of National Biography ; and notices on 4 and 6 in the Dictionary of American Biography (now in course of publication).

The botanical facts quoted by ZIRKLE concerning each man are not always new, but he has rendered a good service by arranging them in a new order and he has increased the significance of each by evidencing its relationships to all the others and showing it in its proper perspective. Thanks to him an important chapter of historical botany will have to be rewritten.

With the author's permission, I reproduce the chronology and summary, as printed at the end of his paper.

1 I676. GREW in an address before the Royal Society, recorded his own belief and that of Sir THOMAS MILLINGTON, that the stamens

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.78 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions