Instruments and the Making of a Philosopher. Spinoza's Career in Optics

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

¹ The author owes gratitude to Fokko Jan Dijksterhuis, Huib Zuidervaart, and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments to an earlier version of this article, and to Margaret Gaida for correcting the English.

² C. Wilson, The Invisible World. Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).

³ W.N.A. Klever with collaboration of J. van Zuylen, ‘Insignis opticus. Spinoza in de geschiedenis van de optica’, De zeventiende eeuw, 6:2 (1990), 47–63. C.A. Crommelin, Het lenzenslijpen in de 17e eeuw (Amsterdam: H.J Paris, 1929), 25–31. S. Nadler, ‘Baruch Spinoza. Heretic, Lens Grinder’, Archive of Ophtalmology, 118 (Oct. 2000), 1425–7. A. Gabbey, ‘Spinoza's Natural Science and Methodology’, in The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, edited by D. Garrett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 142–91, in particular 150–1, 153–4.

⁴ Die Lebensgeschichte Spinozas, edited by J. Freudenthal, second expanded edition by M. Walther, 2 vols (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2006), vol. 1, 118–19. See also Klever, ‘Insignis opticus’, 47–8.

⁵ Quoted by J. Israel, Radical Enlightenment. Philosophy and the Origins of Modernity 1650–1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 163.

⁶ The text of the original documents is reproduced in Die Lebensgeschichte Spinozas, vol. 1, 358: ‘Een slijpmoolen en gereedt schap daertoe behoorende, alsmeed’ eenig veerkijckers. dogh niet bequam, edoch daer onder een bequam, mitsgaders eenigh glas & blicke pijpen.'

⁷ Die Lebensgeschichte Spinozas, vol. 1, 336.

⁸ Die Lebensgeschichte Spinozas, vol. 1, 373: ‘Boeken, Manuscripten, Verrekijckers, Vergroot-glasen, Glasen soo geslepen als ongeslepen, en verscheyde Slijpgereetschap, soo Molens als groote en kleyne Metale Schotels, daer toe dienende, en soo voort.’

⁹ Die Lebensgeschichte Spinozas, vol. 1, 118.

¹⁰ Handwritten note in a copy of his brother's work on grinding lenses, 1687 March 31. C. Huygens, Oeuvres complètes, 22 vols (The Hague 1888–1950) [henceforth: OC], vol. 22, 732 note 81.

¹¹ For a general overview, see M. Daumas, Scientific Instruments of the 17 ^th and 18 ^th Centuries (New York and Washington: Praeger, 1972), 28–47 (on early telescopes and microscopes), 63–88 (on seventeenth-century workshops). I. Keil, Augustanus opticus. Johann Wiesel (1583–1662) und 200 Jahre optisches Handwerk in Augsburg (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000), 211–16 (Europe), 199–211 (Germany), 186–98 (Augsburg).

¹² I. Keil, Augustanus opticus.

¹³ On the situation in London, see also A.D.C. Simpson, ‘Robert Hooke and Practical Optics. Technical Support at a Scientific Frontier’, in Robert Hooke. New Studies, edited by M. Hunter and S. Schaffer (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1989), 33–61; G.C. Glifton, ‘The Spectaclemakers’ Company and the Origins of the Optical Instrument-making Trade in London', in Making Instruments Count. Essays on Historical Scientific Instruments presented to Gerard L'Estrange Turner, edited by R.G.W. Anderson, J.A. Bennett, and W.F. Ryan (Aldershot and Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1993), 341–64.

¹⁴ For a detailed account of telescope production in the Netherlands, see: H. Zuidervaart, ‘The “Invisible Technician” Made Visible. Telescope Making in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Century Dutch Republic’ (forthcoming). I owe gratitude to Dr. Zuidervaart for communicating this unpublished article to me.

¹⁵ P. de Clercq, At the Sign of the Oriental Lamp. The Musschenbroek Workshop in Leiden, 1660–1750 (Rotterdam: Erasmus Publishing, 1997), 115–19.

¹⁶ S. Nadler, Spinoza. A Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 183. Nadler, ‘Baruch Spinoza’, 1426.

¹⁷ R. Vermij, ‘Le Spinozisme en Hollande: Le cercle de Tschirnhaus’, Cahiers Spinoza, 6 (1991), 145–68.

¹⁸ De Clercq, At the Sign of the Oriental Lamp, 23. More research on the instrument trade in the Netherlands is needed, but the position of the craft guilds appears to have been rather weak.

¹⁹ Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit offers another example of a person who, starting from a general philosophical interest, ended up as a professional instrument maker. In his case, unlike Spinoza's, instrument making even became his main occupation.

²⁰ A. van Helden and R. van Gent, ‘The Lens Production by Christiaan and Constantijn Huygens’, Annals of Science, 56 (1999), 69–79. R, Vermij, Huygens. De mathematisering van de werkelijkheid (Diemen: Veen Magazines, 2007), 39–41. For another well-documented case of an outsider's efforts to master the craft of lens making, see F.J. Dijksterhuis, ‘Labour on Lenses: Isaac Beeckman's Notes on Lens Making’, in The Origins of the Telescope, edited by A. Van Helden et al. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), 257–70.

²¹ See the various articles in Van Helden et al., Origins of the Telescope.

²² F. Jan Dijksterhuis, Lenses and Waves. Christiaan Huygens and the Mathematical Science of Optics in the Seventeenth Century (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2004), 30–32.

²³ A. Van Helden, ‘The Telescope in the Seventeenth Century’, in The Scientific Enterprise in Early Modern Europe: Readings from Isis, edited by P. Dear (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 133–53.

²⁴ On the early history of microscopes, see M. Fournier, The Fabric of Life: Microscopy in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 9–40.

²⁵ See E. Jorink, Het boeck der natuere. Nederlandse geleerden en de wonderen van Gods schepping 1575–1715 (Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2006), 219–28 on the use of the microscope among Dutch humanist scholars.

²⁶ Constantijn Huygens to Golius, 1629 December 19, C. Huygens, Briefwisseling, edited by J.A. Worp, I, 1608–1634 (Rijks geschiedkundige publicatien 15) letter no. 479, 271. ‘Hortari deinde libet, ut, quando nunc rei matehmaticae etiam ex occifio vacas, eius, quae de radio refracto est, partem, neminis satis excultam, serio tibi commendatam esse patiaris, ut tandem vel a rei desperatae tabula tollamus universi manum, vel, quod ab industria sperandum tua est, ingentis arcani gloriam Bataviae vindicemus.’

²⁸ Golius to Huygens, 1632 November 1. C. Huygens, Briefwisseling, letter no. 730. Descartes is mentioned in two earlier letters by Golius to Huygens, from 7 and 16 April 1632.

²⁷ See for Descartes' discovery of the law of refraction J.A. Schuster, ‘Descartes opticien. The Construction of the Law of Refraction and the Manufacture of Its Physical Rationales, 1618–29’, in Descartes' Natural Philosophy, edited by S. Gaukroger, J. Schuster, and J. Sutton (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 258–312.

²⁹ On Snellius's discovery of the law of refraction, see K. Hentschel, ‘Das Brechungsgesetz in der Fassung von Snellius. Rekonstruktion seines Entdeckungspfades und eine Uebersetzung seines lateinischen Manuskriptes sowie ergänzender Dokumente’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 55 (2001), 297–344. L. de Wreede, ‘Willebrord Snellius (1580–1626). A Humanist Reshaping the Mathematical Sciences’ (PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, 2007), 102–8.

³⁰ F. Jan Dijksterhuis, ‘Labour on Lenses’. See also K. van Berkel, Isaac Beeckman (1588–1637) en de mechanisering van het wereldbeeld (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1983), 139–42.

³¹ According to a letter to Schickart from 1634 Jan. 10, mentioned by C. de Waard in Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek, I (Leiden, 1911), 1161.

³² R. Buning, ‘An Unknown Letter from Henricus Reneri to Constantijn Huygens on the Thermometer and the Camera Obscura’, in Lias. Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and Its Sources, 37 (2010), 89–106.

³³ Fournier, The Fabric of Life, 186–8, 197. E.G. Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic. The Shaping of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 62, is critical about the role of Cartesian philosophy and regards it rather as an obstacle.

³⁴ Huygens's work on optics has been studied in detail by Dijksterhuis, Lenses and Waves.

³⁵ M. Fournier, ‘Huygens’ Microscopical Researches', Janus, 68 (1981), 199–209.

³⁶ Johannes Hudde to Lambert van Velthuizen, 1657 October 13. University of Amsterdam, hs D 29. ‘alzo ik van mening ben […] door vergroot-glazen te onderzoeken, of men ad oculum de generatie van veel dingen niet zal konnen vinden en demonstreren; en hier toe zie ik door verscheide experimenten, die ik alrede gedaan heb, groote hoop, zulx ook dat ik tegenwoordigh, daardoor be…. zijnde, bezigh ben om de beste vergrootglazen te determineren.’

³⁷ R. Vermij and E. Atzema, ‘“Specilla circularia”: An Unknown Work by Johannes Hudde’, Studia Leibnitiana, 27 (1995), 104–21. The text of Hudde's treatise is reproduced on 113–21. See on the treatise also Dijksterhuis, Lenses and Waves, 70–72.

³⁸ Vermij and Atzema, ‘“Specilla circularia”’, 114: ‘Cardo hujus rei in hoc versatur, ut magnam radiorum parallelorum copiam per vitrum, in quod incidunt, ita refringi faciamus, ut postea ad unum idemque punctum tendant. Sed punctum hoc aut mathematice aut mechanice considerari potest. Et quamvis certum sit, figuras circulares non habere potentiam illam aut proprietatem, (…) parallelos radios ita refringendi, ut postea ad unum punctum mathematicum tendant, nihilominus tamen magnam eorum copiam ita versus eundem locum inflectere possunt, ut spatium illud, in quo omnes conveniunt, pro puncto mechanico tantum sit habendum. Punctum autem mechanicum appello, quod in mechanicis aut divisibile non est, aut cujus partes hic non sunt consideratu digna.’

³⁹ Another intriguing indication is that in this period, people started worrying about who was the ‘real’ inventor of the telescope. See H. Zuidervaart, ‘The “True Inventor” of the Telescope. A Survey of 400 Years of Debate’, in The Origins of the Telescope, edited by Van Helden et al., (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), 9–44, esp. 21–6.

⁴⁰ The passages on Spinoza's optics have also been collected and commented upon by Klever, ‘Insignis opticus’.

⁴¹ Klever, ‘Insignis opticus’, 60, note 20. On Kerckring, see Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek, II, 663–4.

⁴² Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1667 Oct. 14. OC, VI, 155.

⁴³ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1667 Nov. 4. OC, VI, 158

⁴⁴ OC, VIII, 91 note 2, an extract from Balthasar de Monconys, Journal des voyages (Lyon, 1665). Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 22–4.

⁴⁵ P.H. van Cittert, ‘Enkelvoudige microscopen’, De natuur, 49 (1929), 135–7 and 145–7; B.J. Ford, Single Lens. The Story of the Simple Microscope (New York: HarperCollins, 1985); B. Bracegirdle, ‘Seventeenth-century Simple Microscopes’, in Making Instruments Count. Essays on Historical Scientific Instruments Presented to Gerard L'Estrange Turner, edited by R.G.W. Anderson, J.A. Bennett, and W.F. Ryan (Aldershot and Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1993). None of these authors mention Hudde. See also Keil, Augustanus opticus, 334–43. On Leeuwenhoek's lenses, see J. van Zuylen, ‘The Microscopes of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek’, in Antoni van Leeuwenhoek 1632–1723, edited by L.C. Palm and H.A.M. Snelders (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1982) 29–55. On Huygens, see M. Fournier, ‘Huygens’ Designs for a Simple Microscope', Annals of Science, 46 (1989), 575–96; Crommelin, Het lenzenslijpen, 38–9.

⁴⁶ Huygens to Hudde vv. 1665 April 4, 5, 10, 17. OC, V, 304, 308–9, 318, 330–1.

⁴⁷ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1668 April 6. OC, VI, 206.

⁴⁸ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1668 May 11. OC, VI, 213.

⁴⁹ I. Keil, ‘Die Fernrohre von Herzog Ernst I., dem Frommen, von Sachsen-Gotha’, Beiträge zur Astronomiegeschichte, 2 (1999), 75, 77. Zuidervaart, ‘The “Invisible Technician”’, note 28.

⁵⁰ Cf. also Van Zuylen (Klever, ‘Insignis opticus’, 60, note 20), who writes that he has the impression that Spinoza's first trials with telescopes fall around 1667 and deems it probable that Hudde instigated them.

⁵¹ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1667 Sept 9. OC, VI, 148.

⁵² Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1667 Sept 23. OC, VI, 151.

⁵³ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1667 Nov 4. OC, VI, 158.

⁵⁴ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1667 Dec 2. OC, VI, 164.

⁵⁵ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1667 Dec 2. OC, VI, 164.

⁵⁶ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1667 Dec. 9. OC, VI, 168.

⁵⁷ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1668 April 6. OC, VI, 205.

⁵⁸ See above, footnote 10. Museum Boerhaave at Leiden owns two lenses with a focal distance of 43 feet made by Constantijn, dated 1685. A.C. van Helden and R.H. van Gent, De Huygenscollectie (Leiden: Museum Boerhaave, 1995), 27.

⁵⁹ Huygens to his brother Constantijn, 1668 May 11. OC, VI, 215.

⁶⁰ Letter 36. Latin text in Spinoza, Opera, edited by C. Gebhardt, 4 vols (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag, 1924), vol. 4, 186–7. English translation by S. Shirley in Spinoza, The Letters, edited by S. Barbone, L. Rice, and J. Adler (Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA: Hackett, 1995), 209–10. Cf. the explanation by Van Zuylen in Klever, ‘Insignis opticus’, 62, note 27. Van Zuylen's interpretation is largely vindicated by Hudde's treatise (which he did not know). On Hudde's treatise, see note 37.

⁶¹ Cf. Van Zuylen in Klever, ‘Insignis opticus’, 62 note 27.

⁶² Letter 45. Spinoza, Opera, vol. 4, 232: ‘an aliam credis esse causam, cur in vitrorum apertura parci esse debemus, quam quia radii, qui ex uno puncto veniunt, non in alio accurate puncto; sed in spatiolo, quod punctum Mechanicum appellare solemus, congregentur, quod spatiolum pro ratione aperturae majus, aut minus est.’ Spinoza, The Letters, 247.

⁶³ Letter 45. Spinoza, Opera, vol. 4, 232: ‘punctum Mechanicum, sive spatiolum, in quo radii, qui ex eodem puncto veniunt, post refractionem congregantur’.

⁶⁴ Fournier, Fabric of Life, 147.

⁶⁵ M. Biagioli, Galileo Courtier. The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 8 and passim.