225 Rembrandt, like Van Hoogstraten: See Weststeijn, The Visible World, pp. 318, 324–25.
225 Besides Vermeer, serving: Paul, “Cultivating Virtuosity,” p. 19.
226 At that time Italian: Bok, “Society, Culture and Collecting in 17th Century Delft,” p. 208.
226 Most Italian paintings: In his survey of death inventories, Montias has found that few paintings by Italian masters were in Delft in Vermeer’s time: there were only ten paintings by Italian masters out of two thousand paintings by known artists in inventories taken between 1610 and 1679. See ibid., p. 209.
227 “not only were not excellent”: On this episode see Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 207–8, and Swillens, Johannes Vermeer, p. 29.
PART 9: THE INVISIBLE WORLD
229 Oldenburg must have: This remarkable event was reported by both Pepys (in a diary entry of June 25, 1667) and Evelyn (in a diary entry of Aug. 8, 1667). Evelyn noted that on that day he had “visited Mr. Oldenburg, a close prisoner in the Tower, being suspected of writing intelligence [state secrets].” See Weld, A History of the Royal Society, 1:204.
230 “That it may be”: Translated and quoted in Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” pp. 40–41.
231 It is believed that Leeuwenhoek: In the “Biographical Register” of AB, vol. 2, the editors state as a fact that Leeuwenhoek owned these two portraits (see p. 469). But evidence for this claim is hard to come by. The provenance of both of these portraits is murky. The Hals portrait was listed in the death inventory of Hendrik Swalmius, who died in June of 1652. See Biesboer, Collections of Paintings in Haarlem, 1572–1745, p. 164. Where the painting went after that is unknown; it suddenly appeared at a Sotheby’s auction in 1934 as the property of a Scottish collector (see Detroit Institute of Arts website for known provenance: http://www.dia.org/object-info/52ff45ec-bcd3-4579-9926-48c15fef11dc.aspx?position=1). The portrait could have been left to Cornelia by Hendrik Swalmius. The Rembrandt portrait seems to have been left to Eleazar Swalmius’s grandson Johannes Dilburgh, who died in 1696 (see Montias, Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam, pp. 167–68); it next is known to have belonged to the brother of Louis XIV, Louis Philippe II, Duc d’Orléans, in 1727. So this one is unlikely to have been owned by Leeuwenhoek and his wife, though they may have had it on a short loan.
231 But it was De Graaf: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 149.
231 He would eventually become: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 907. For more on Ruysch see Margócsy, “A Philosophy of Wax.”
232 Leeuwenhoek would later: AvL to RSL, Jan. 14, 1678, AB, 2:311–13.
232 Catholics tended to know: See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 641.
232 Although the Dutch Republic: The Holland Society of Science was founded in 1752, the Zeeland Society of Sciences in 1765. See Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 1065.
233 Liefhebbers can be translated: See Jorink, Reading the Book of Nature, p. 9.
233 The term was employed: See Weststeijn, The Universal Art of Samuel van Hoogstraten, p. 22.
233 At the time, natural philosophers: On the professionalization of scientists in the nineteenth century, see Snyder, The Philosophical Breakfast Club.
233 Leeuwenhoek thought of himself: Liefhebber had two meanings in Dutch at the time. One was “amateur” or “dabbler.” But it was also the term used for those citizens who chose not to register themselves as members of the Dutch Reformed Church. Catholics and other non-Protestants—like Vermeer after his marriage, and Baruch Spinoza—were liefhebbers, but so were many Protestants who did not wish to submit themselves to the ecclesiastical discipline of the Reformed Church, as one did not need to be officially a member of the Reformed Church to get baptized, married, or buried in the church. See Kooi, Calvinists and Catholics during Holland’s Golden Age, pp. 32–33.
233 Soon after Leeuwenhoek wrote: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 149.
233 “He is a person unlearned”: Quoted in Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” pp. 43–44.
233 During these fifty years: See Weld, A History of the Royal Society, 1:243–45.
233 Most of his letters: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 150.
234 “unarranged promiscuously”: AvL to Oldenburg, Feb. 11, 1675, AB, 1:233.
235 “discover their interior”: Cavendish, Observations on Experimental Philosophy, preface, n.p.
235 He was using a microscope: See Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” pp. 69ff.
236 “The operations of animals”: Borelli, translated and quoted ibid., p. 79.
236 Like Beeckman, Descartes: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 39.
237 “the heavenly machine”: Kepler and Boyle quoted in Panek, Seeing and Believing, p. 85.
237 In his inaugural lecture: Cited in Wilson, The Invisible World, pp. 13–14.
237 Later, when Leeuwenhoek: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 67, and Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” pp. 126–27.
237 He subsequently concluded: AvL to RSL, Feb. 1, 1692, AB, 8:245.
237 Leeuwenhoek could have known: Snelders, “Antoni van Leeuwenhoek’s Mechanistic View of the World,” p. 62.
237 Some writers, however: See Meli, “Machines and the Body,” pp. 54–56.
238 “descend into the interior”: Joannes de Raey, Clavis philosophiae naturalis (1654), quoted in Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 41.
238 “come to know the structure”: Quoted in Wilson, The Invisible World, p. 14.
238 By the 1680s, microscopical: Such as Govard Bidloo, Anatomia humani corporis (1685) and Steven Blanckaert, De nieuw hervormde anatomie (1686). See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 83n13.
238 “rummaging through”: Pierre Bayle, Nouvelles de la République des lettres (1686), quoted ibid., p. 41.
239 Members of the public: See Rupp, “Matters of Life and Death,” pp. 263–69.
239 “nor was it spurned”: Francesco Cavazza, Le scuolo dell’ antico studio Bolognese (1896), quoted in Wilson, The Invisible World, p. 24.
239 The Leiden theater possessed: Rupp, “Matters of Life and Death,” p. 272.
239 The Delft theater displayed: Ibid., pp. 275–76.
240 By such methods: See Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 68.
240 He was the first: Ibid., p. 69.
240 By the end of the: For more on the Bologna silkworm industry during this period, see Poni, “Per la storia del distretto industriale serico di Bologna (secolo XVI–XIX).”
241 He also detected: Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 72.
241 In 1669 he published: See Weld, A History of the Royal Society, 1: 227.
241 Margaret Cavendish could: “The Silk-worm digs her Grave as she doth spin / And makes her Winding-sheet to lap her in: / And from her Bowels takes a heap of Silk, / Which on her Body as a Tomb is built: / Out of her ashes do her young ones rise; / Having bequeath’d her Life to them, she dyes.” Nature’s Pictures Drawn by Fancie’s Pencil to the Life.
241 “the parts belonging”: Malpighi, De bombyce (The silkworm), quoted in Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 72.
241 Aristotle had correctly noted: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 232.
242 “lies concealed in”: See Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 74, Cobb, Generation, pp. 234–35, and Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, pp. 237–40.
242 “a glass-jar, full”: Minutes of the meeting of July 31, 1660, in Weld, A History of the Royal Society, 1:113.
243 This claim had the benefit: On Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen, see Cobb, Generation, pp. 14–16.
244 After he had settled: See Rupp, “Matters of Life and Death.”
244 An image of that specimen: Birch, The History of the Royal Society, 2:397.
244 the “thready” nature: Quotations from Van Horne and De Graaf in Cobb, Generation, p. 113.
<
br /> 244 Swammerdam threw oil: See Swammerdam, Miraculum naturae sive uteri muliebris fabrica (1672), cited in Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 47.
245 But he had ignored: See Lindeboom, “Leeuwenhoek and the Problem of Sexual Reproduction,” p. 131.
245 It also underlined: See Cobb, Generation, pp. 183–86.
245 Leeuwenhoek would later report: AvL to Royal Society and to George Garden, March 19, 1694, AB, 10:59. As Cobb notes, another source claims that this argument took place at Leeuwenhoek’s house: “Albrecht von Haller says that there was a quarrel between de Graaf and Swammerdam at the home of Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, in consequence of which de Graaf died within twenty-four hours.” However (as Cobb also points out), Haller gave no source for this story (see Cobb, Generation, p. 285n73).
246 Many of Leeuwenhoek’s: See AB, 1:92ff, 2:206–7, 210ff, 290–91, 326–27, 3:146–47, 422–23, 4:152–53, 6:18–19, 312–13, 7:136–39.
246 “a hungry Lowse upon”: AvL to Oldenburg, Aug. 15, 1673, AB, 1:55.
246 “The Lowse having fixt”: Ibid.
247 “lousy discourse”: AvL to Frederik Adriaan van Reede van Renswoude, Feb. 20, 1696, AB, 7:179–217.
248 “I tooke a bodkine: Newton, “An experiment to put pressure on the eye,” Cambridge University Library, Ms. Add. 3995, p. 15, available at http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/exhibitions/Footprints_of_the_Lion/private_scholar.html.
248 “two pounds of good”: See AvL to RSL, Oct. 12, 1685, AB, 5:315–17
248 Instead, he observed: Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 188.
249 Malpighi had discerned: Ibid.
249 “when I was at your”: AvL to Constantijn Huygens, April 5, 1674, AB, 1:67.
249 “many times repeated”: AvL to Hooke, Jan. 14, 1678, AB, 2:307.
249 He looked at other: See Cole, “Leeuwenhoek’s Zoological Researches, Part I,” p. 20.
249 Since he said that: See Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” p. 335.
249 Leeuwenhoek told Hooke: AvL to Hooke, April 5, 1674, AB, 1:67.
249 Even when he sent: AvL to Oldenburg, July 6, 1674, AB, 1:123–25. The rouleaux occur either because of problems with preparing the blood specimen for observing or because of the presence of one of several diseases that involve a high level of abnormal globulins or fibrinogen in the blood.
249 It would take four: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, pp. 188n54, 194.
251 “I thereupon concluded”: AvL to Oldenburg, Sept. 7, 1674, AB, 1:139–53.
251 Recently Brian Ford: B. J. Ford, Single Lens, pp. 47–49.
251 After describing his: AvL to Oldenburgh, Sept. 7, 1674, AB, 1:161–63.
252 Some of [them] were: Ibid., p. 165.
253 “above a thousand times”: Ibid., pp. 163–65.
254 “Last summer I”: AvL to Oldenburg, Dec. 20, 1675, AB, 1:331.
254 “I detected living”: AvL to Oldenburg, Jan. 22, 1676, AB, 1:347.
254 “I imagine, that”: AvL to Oldenburg, Oct. 9, 1676, AB, 2:75. (This letter was written in the hand of another, but signed by Leeuwenhoek.)
255 In later years Leeuwenhoek: See AB, 3:12–93, 332–33, 5:20–21, and Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 180. Leeuwenhoek had estimated a coarse grain of sand to be 1/30 of an inch in diameter. See Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” p. 335.
255 “I have seen several hundreds”: AvL to Oldenburg, Oct. 9, 1676, AB, 2:61–77.
255 “This water is in Summer”: AvL to Oldenburg, Oct. 9, 1676, AB, 2:85–87.
258 “For me this was”: The descriptions of this experiment are ibid., pp. 95–115.
258 “it was pretty”: Ibid., p. 117.
258 Leeuwenhoek’s beloved “little dog”: AvL to Oldenburg, Feb. 22, 1676, AB, 1:361. On the parrot, see AvL to RSL, Oct. 15, 1693, AB, 9:209.
259 This appears to be: AvL to Oldenburg, Oct. 9, 1676, AB, 2:125–29.
259 Oldenburg was instructed: See Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 154.
259 He could see that: See AvL to Oldenburg, March 23, 1677, AB, 2:197–99.
259 figuring that the animals: Ibid.
260 “This exceeds belief”: AvL to Oldenburg, Oct. 5, 1677, AB, 2:255.
260 This was not unusual: On Torricelli and secrecy, see Molesini, “The Optical Quality of 17th Century Lenses,” p. 119.
261 The Royal Society may not: See Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 117, and The Aspiring Adept, pp. 115–34.
261 In July 1783 Price: See Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, pp. 88–89.
262 “At present I use”: AvL to Oldenburg, Jan. 22, 1675, AB, 1:211.
262 “My method for seeing”: AvL to Oldenburg, Oct. 9, 1676, AB, 2:125–29.
262 “The fault is mine”: AvL to Oldenburg, March 26, 1675, AB, 1:293–95.
262 He did disclose that: AvL to Oldenburg, March 23, 1677, AB, 2:199–201. Leeuwenhoek states clearly that he introduces the water into a “clean little glass tube.” See also Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” p. 169, and Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic, p. 154.
262 However, he invited: AvL to Oldenburg, March 26, 1675, AB, 1:279.
262 sending legal affidavits: They were attached to AvL’s letter to Oldenburg, Oct. 5, 1677, AB, 2:256–71.
263 “Well, as eye-witnesses”: Affidavit signed by B. Haan (Delft) and H. Cordes (The Hague), dated May 18, 1677, AB, 2:257–61.
263 “pepper-water not exceeding the size”: Affidavit signed by R. Gordon, June 2, 1677, AB, 2:263.
263 “above thirty thousand Living”: Affidavit signed by A. Hodenpijl, Aug. 13, 1677, AB, 2:267.
263 “did not exceed”: Affidavit signed by J. Boogert, R. Poitevin, and W. V. Burch, Aug. 21, 1677, AB, 2:267.
263 “being killed by the vinegar”: Affidavit signed by A. Petrie, Aug. 30, 1677, AB, 2:274.
264 Grew was famed: See Fournier, “The Fabric of Life,” p. 99.
264 Hooke was so busy: See Inwood, The Forgotten Genius, chap. 9.
265 Hooke rather disingenuously: For Hooke’s claim see Birch, The History of the Royal Society, 3:347–48.
265 Apparently he was busy: Ibid., p. 349.
265 “[The little animals] were observed”: Ibid., p. 352.
266 “very well pleased”: Quoted in Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” p. 184.
266 As a snide comment on: Hooke, Microscopium: or, Some New Discoveries Made with and Concerning Microscopes (1678), included in Hooke, Lectures and Collections.
266 “We had such stories”: John Locke, quoted in Wilson, The Invisible World, p. 237.
266 “Among the ignorant”: Leeuwenhoek, Send-brief XXXII, p. 317, quoted in Dobell, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals,” p. 76.
PART 10: GENERATIONS
267 “fallen into a frenzy”: Attestation of Catharina Vermeer to the city council, reproduced in Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, appendix B, pp. 344–45.
267 Over the summer he: See ibid., pp. 212–14. Maria Thins not only lost the interest on the 2,900 guilders capital but was forced to pay back the loan later in order to retrieve the collateral sum.
267 Catharina had watched: The burial registers of the Oude Kerk record that Vermeer was buried on Dec. 15, 1675; it is incorrectly stated in the margin that Vermeer left “eight minor” children. In fact, Johannes and Catharina had ten minor children living at home at the time of his death. The register of graves noted that “on December 1675 Johan Vermeer was laid in his grave and the above-mentioned infant [baerkint] was placed on the coffin of the aforementioned Vermeer.” Vermeer’s infant was buried on June 27, 1673. Burial register, DTB 14 inv. 42, folio 77v. See also Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, p. 213 and appendix B, p. 337.
268 As her own mother: Doc. no. 382, July 27, 1677, translated and reprinted in Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, appendix B, p. 351.
268 “Their worships the Sherriff
s”: Doc. no. 370, Sept. 30, 1676, translated and reprinted in ibid., p. 346.
268 Because of this, Montias: See Montias, “Recent Archival Research on Vermeer,” pp. 101–2.
268 In Vermeer’s and Leeuwenhoek’s: According to Montias himself; see his Artists and Artisans in Delft, p. 223.
269 She was a schoolteacher: Her burial notice states “stadschool in Achtersack”—which suggests that she had been at the school on the Achtersack road. It is possible she worked at the school in a different capacity. DTB Delft 14, inv. 42, folio 155.
269 But in December: The marriage license is DTB Delft 14, inv. 74, folio 5. The amended document states “scheidingen 9e. keurboek.” Scheidingen generally referred to a separation or divorce, and the “9e keurboek” would have been the ninth volume of the resolutions of the city council.
269 Leeuwenhoek’s daughter: ORA (Old Judicial Archive) Delft, inv. 281–83, folio 408R1, cited at http://lensonleeuwenhoek.net/content/daughter-maria-named-will-her-aunt-maria-de-meij.
270 He would go on: See AvL to Hooke, Nov. 12, 1680, AB, 3: 281–85, and AvL to RSL, Jan. 5, 1685, AB, 5:29–59.
270 Vermeer might have asked: By 1674, however, Catharina Cramer had died and Ritmejer was now married to Alette van Sprinckhuijse, who was a neighbor of Vermeer’s on the Oude Langendijck. Still, Vermeer may have had questions about the handling of Catharina Cramer’s estate, vis-à-vis his soon-to-be son-in-law.
270 We know he would later: See Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft, p. 203n.
271 Vermeer would have known: See ibid., p. 370.
271 That would have been: At the time white bread was selling for about eleven pounds per guilder, or one loaf for two stuivers and ten pennies. The amount owed to Van Buyten corresponds to about eight thousand pounds of white bread. Vermeer’s large family could well have consumed six to eight pounds of bread per day, meaning that the debt to Van Buyten was probably for two or three years’ worth of bread deliveries. For the price of bread, see Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 217–18, and n. 7.
272 If the pictures were sold: Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp. 216–18 and appendix B, p. 338.
272 On February 22 or 24: Ibid., pp. 338–39.
Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeing Page 45
