Vintage Visits: The Journal des SÇavans: the First Published Scientific Journal

As a frequent visitor to the Brooks Collection of Antique Microscopes and Books, I sometimes find myself going down microscopical rabbit holes. Such was the case when I came upon a year’s worth of bound issues of the Journal des Sҫavans. This particular run of the Journal was published in 1678. The pages are printed on vellum, and the articles are written in French, and I do not read or speak the French language.

However, while thumbing through this nearly 350-year-old bound collection of the Journal des Sҫavans, my attention was drawn to several odd illustrations. I had no idea what the images conveyed in the text, but with the help of Google Translate I was able to get the gist.

As an example, the image below appears in a short article published on Monday, April 4, 1678, and was written by Jean-Baptiste Panthot. The illustration helps to visualize the use of a bell machine for going underwater.

Panthot’s article appears in the Journal des Sҫavans because the topic is in keeping with the Journal’s spirit and broader purpose as described by the editor.

“…the main purpose of the Journal, it will convey the experiences in Physics and Chemistry that can help explain the effects of Nature, the new discoveries being made in the Arts and Sciences, what Anatomy may uncover as new in Animals—in short, everything that was proposed at the beginning of this Work, which the Public has found so useful.…”

The Journal des Sҫavans provided thought leaders the platform for presenting new ideas and discoveries. As I explored the Journal articles in this collection, I noticed some contained microscopical images. But why was this “book” in the Brooks Collection and what is its importance to microscopy?

Journal of the Scholars

The Journal des Sҫavans is the first scientific journal published in Europe and translates literally as ‘Journal of the Learned’, with the first issues distributed in 1665. The journal has gone through a few name changes. In the early years the journal was known as, Journal des Sҫavans, then changed to Journal des savans, and later settling on Journal des savants.

Our bound collection of the Journal des Sҫavans is a complete weekly run from January 10 – December 16, 1678. A unique feature to this run of the Journal was its new smaller format. The editor explains to the reader the reason for the change. Below is a Google translation of the editor’s note:

“The Printer to the Reader

The eagerness with which the Journal is requested in foreign countries as well as in the most remote provinces of the Kingdom has compelled the Author to find a way to deliver it as conveniently as a simple letter.

For this purpose, from now on, there will always be a small edition printed, which will be distributed at the same time as the large one. Thus, those who are fond of the small volumes and who go to the trouble of having the journals sent from foreign countries will henceforth be spared this effort. They will even find this advantage in that they will have them free from all the errors that are left in those countries either through negligence or for not sufficiently understanding the French language.”

From this quote, our 1678 volume of bound journal issues represents the first time a smaller format was made available to readers. Up until this time the Journal des Sҫavans was only published as a twelve-page quarto pamphlet measuring 9” x 12”. Our smaller version of the Journal measures 3” x 5.5”, which is classified as Imperial paper size. The Gallica website has digitized most of the issues of the Journal des Sҫavans. Available issues from Gallica start with the 1665 first issues and run through 1954.

There is a significant gap between 1793 – 1815 due to the Journal being suppressed during this period. The scanned copies on the Gallica website are slightly different from our smaller format version. The page numbers in our smaller edition don’t always match the larger format of scanned versions, probably due to the page size differences.

Our bound issues of the Journal des Sҫavans were acquired and added to the Brooks Collection in 2016. The seller described the bound journal issues as:

“an early and important book…rare in such fine condition…the only printed publication showing a Huygens-type microscope…and contains the controversy between Christiaan Huygens and Nicolaas Hartsoeker about the primacy of the realization of small lenses of high magnification made for these microscopes.”

The seller’s description of our 1678 bound collection of Journal des Sҫavans answered my question of why this work was added the Brooks Collection. But a review of the letters submitted by Huygens and Hartsoeker to the Journal des Sҫavans in 1678, their “controversy” is more nuanced and goes beyond the primacy of assigning credit for using small lenses; it is more about Huygens leaving out Hartsoeker’s name when describing the use of a simple microscope designed by Huygens and Hartsoeker.

Again, with the help of Google Translate and referencing an excellent paper by S. Catherine Abou-Nemeh titled The Natural Philosopher and the Microscope: Nicolas Hartsoeker Unravels Nature’s “Admirable Œconomy, published in “History of Science”, I was able to better understand the rift between Huygens and Hartsoeker. Abou-Nemeh’s paper is the only reference I found which critically examines Hartsoeker along with his contemporaries. She sheds light on the complexities of the personalities involved, their relationships with each other, societal beliefs, and social standing. For those interested in such a historical analysis of the Huygens/Hartsoeker controversy, I highly recommend purchasing Abou-Nemeh’s article. It’s well worth the cost of $37.50.

An Intellectual Property Dispute

Below are the Google translated excerpts of letters from Huygens and Hartsoeker appearing in the Journal des Sҫavans in separate weeks of August 1678. I have added my comments within each letter, based on what I learned, mostly from Abou-Nemeh’s research. Below is the first letter to the Journal des Sҫavans from Huygens:

Monday, August 15, 1678: Excerpt from a letter from Mr. Huygens of the Royal Academy of Sciences to the author of the Journal concerning a new type of microscope that he brought from Holland.

This microscope consists of a single small glass sphere, similar to those with which people from Holland and England have observed the animals discovered in rainwater and pepper, which were discussed in the 9^th and 11^th Journals of this year; but these spheres are reduced to a smaller size than those previous ones.

Author’s Note: When Huygens references the “9^th and 11^th Journals of this year” he is referring to letters submitted to the Journal des Sҫavans by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. Maybe Huygens simply forgot to mention Leeuwenhoek’s name, too?

This microscope consists of a single small glass sphere, just like those with which animals were observed in Holland and England.

Among those I brought from Holland, there are some whose spheres are no larger than a grain of sand, and some even so small that they are barely visible. This causes them to magnify objects in an extraordinary manner, the magnification being greater the smaller the spheres are.

Author’s Note: Whose lenses are Huygens speaking of? According to Abou-Nemeh’s research, the small lenses for this simple microscope were likely painstakingly made by Hartsoeker, using his pioneering technique, which he shared widely with the lens making community.

The object one wants to observe is enclosed between a piece of glass and a piece of talc; all fitted into a small machine which seems to me more convenient than those that have been used until now.

Author’s Note: A machine Huygens made with the help Hartsoeker.

A very small drop of water taken from a glass in which pepper has been left to soak for two or three days, being thus enclosed, appears like a large pond, in which one sees an infinite number of tiny little fish swimming. What I have observed in particular about this pepper water, to avoid repeating what has already been published in the Journal, is that not all types of pepper give the same kind of animals. Those from a certain pepper are much larger than those from others, whether this comes from the age of the pepper or some other cause that can be discovered over time.

There are still other seeds that give rise to similar animals, like Coriander. I have seen the same thing in birch sap, after keeping it for five or six days. Some have observed them in water in which nutmegs and cinnamon had been soaked; and apparently, they will be discovered in many other substances. One might say that these animals are generated through some corruption or fermentation, but there are others that must have a different principle. Such are those discovered with this microscope in the semen of animals, which seem to be almost entirely composed of it. They are all made of a transparent substance. They move very quickly, and their shape is similar to that of frogs before their feet are formed. This latter discovery, which was first made public in Holland, seems to me very important and likely to engage those who carefully study the generation of animals.

End of the twenty-eighth Journal

Monday, August 29, 1678: Excerpt from a Letter from Mr. Nicholas Hartsoker written to the Author of the Journal regarding the method of making the new Microscopes, which was mentioned in the Journal a few days ago.

What we said about the new Microscopes that Mr. Huygens brought from Holland was found so interesting that everyone wished to know the method of making them. Mr. Hartsoeker, who greatly contributed to perfecting what had been done on this subject so far, by reducing the spheres to that utmost smallness which greatly helps to magnify objects as we have noted, and discovering a way to modify the light that made the vision unclear, informs us of the following method.

Author’s Note: The editor of the Journal des Sҫavans is giving credit where credit is due, to Harsoeker lens making abilities. Abou-Nemeh article discusses how making small lenses for a microscope was not a trivial matter. The process usually involves hundreds of attempts before completing a few lenses good enough to use with a simple microscope.

He had at first thought of making them with a lamp at the end of a glass thread; but later he found that they rounded much better by taking the smallest shards of broken and well-refined glass, and holding them over the flame of a candle at the tip of a moistened needle, for then this small splinter or piece of glass forms into a ball, which is slightly attached to the needle and often falls off by itself.

Author’s Note: Hartsoeker’s possessed knowledge of the importance of glass quality, something he picked up while working at Colbert’s royal glassworks. As Abou-Nemeh points out, Hartsoeker knew that chemically refined glass held up better during the polishing phase and improved the lens’ final magnification capability.

The way he applies these balls is as follows. He encloses them between two very thin sheets of brass, which he fastens together with small copper pins, making a small opening on either side where the little ball is placed. The one on the side of the object is about only a sixth of the diameter of the small balls, so that if it were larger, the rays of light would merge. The hole must also not be too small in order to see a greater number of parts of the object.

In this way, besides the observations we have already mentioned, he also newly discovered that in urine kept for a few days, small animals are generated that are even much smaller than those seen in pond water, and which have the shape of little eels. He finds them in the semen of the rooster, which appear to be roughly of the same shape, though quite different, as can be seen in the small animals in the semen of others, which resemble, as we have noted, newly hatched frogs.

Author’s Note: The above description demonstrates Hartsoeker’s devotion to not only designing his simple microscope, but also his considerations made with regard to sample preparation, all accompanied by Hartsoeker’s detailed labeled drawing.

The device he used for working with these spheres is composed of two main parts, namely the Plate AA and the Plate BB. To Plate AA is attached a Disk C which moves on a Pivot. There are several circular openings that can be rotated in front of the object located inside the Hole I to modify the light in various ways; this disk is much more convenient and less cumbersome than a tube he had previously invented.

D is another Round R attached to the other side of the same plate AA, which likewise has several holes for applying different objects with wax. They are enclosed between a piece of flat glass and another piece of talc, as imagined by Mr. Huygens, or alternatively in a thick glass tube. This Round D is arranged so that it can be rotated, raised, and lowered in any direction to see all parts of the object. EE is a small plate with two blades that pivot back and forth, into which the Plate F, also composed of two blades, is applied, between which several microscopes or spheres of different sizes are mounted. GG are the screws used to bring the object closer or farther away to find the point of view. For the use of the machine, it is applied to the side eye that does not appear in the figure, namely to the hole corresponding to hole I.

End of the thirtieth Journal.

In this collection of Journal issues was not only the articles and letters from Huygens and Hartsoeker, but also those from van Leeuwenhoek, who once accused Hartsoeker of taking credit for the discovery of spermatozoa, which was first reported by van Leeuwenhoek. It appears there were frequent lapses in giving credit where credit is due when it came to microscopical innovations. From 1678 and beyond, Hartsoeker made sure his future designs and ideas had his name attached to them in print.