Part 4
The microscope, nearly at the same period, gave rise to M. Buffon’s famous system of organic molecules, and M. Needham’s incomprehensible ideas concerning a vegetable force and the vitality of matter. M. Buffon has dressed up his system with all the charms of eloquence, presenting it to the mind in the most agreeable and lively colours, exerting the depths of erudition in the most interesting and seducing manner to establish his hypothesis, making us almost ready to adopt it against the dictates of reason, and the evidence of facts. But whether this great man was misled by the warmth of his imagination, his attachment to a favourite system, or the use of imperfect instruments, it appears but too evident, that he was not acquainted with the objects whose nature he attempted to investigate; and it is probable, that he never saw[18] those which he supposed he was describing, continually confounding the animalculæ produced from the putrifying decomposition of animal substances, with the spermatic animalculæ, although they are two kinds of beings, differing in form and nature; so that the beautiful fabric attempted to be raised on his hypothesis, vanishes before the light of truth and well conducted experiments.
[18] Porro Buffonius, ut cum illustris viri venia dicam, omnino non videtur vermiculos seminales vidisse. Diuturnitas enim vitæ quam suis corpusculis tribuit, ostendit non esse nostra animalcula (id est, spermatica) quibus brevis et paucarum horarum vita est. Haller Physiol. tom. 7.
After this period, the mind, either satisfied with the discoveries already made, which will be particularly described hereafter, or tired by its own exertions, sought for repose in other pursuits; so that for several years this instrument was again, in some measure, laid aside. In 1770, Dr. Hill[19] published a treatise, in which he endeavoured to explain the construction of timber by the microscope, and shew the number, the nature, and office of its several parts, their various arrangements and proportions in the different kinds; and point out a way of judging, from the structure of trees, the uses they will best serve in the affairs of life. So important a subject soon revived the ardor for microscopic pursuits, which seems to have been increasing ever since. About the same time, my father contrived an instrument for cutting the transverse sections of wood, in order that the texture thereof might be rendered more visible in the microscope, and consequently be better understood; this instrument was afterwards improved by Mr. Cumming. Another instrument for the same purpose, more certain in its effects, and more easily managed, is represented in Fig. 1. Plate IX; and will be described in one of the following chapters. Dr. Hill and Mr. Custance now endeavoured to bring back the microscope nearer to the old standard, to increase the field by the multiplication of the eye glasses, and to augment the light on the object, by condensing lenses; and in this they happily succeeded: Mr. Custance was unrivalled in his dexterity in preparing, and accuracy in cutting thin transverse sections of wood.
[19] Dr. Hill on the Construction of Timber.
In 1771, my father published a fourth edition of his Micrographia, in which he described the principal inventions then in use; particularly a contrivance of his own, for applying the solar microscope to the camera obscura, and illuminating it at night by a lamp, by which means a picture of microscopic objects might be exhibited in winter evenings.
It appears[20] from the testimony of M. Æpinus, that Dr. Lieberkühn had considerably improved the solar microscope, by adapting it to view opake objects. This contrivance was by some means lost. The knowledge, however, that such an effect had been produced, led Æpinus to attend to the subject himself, in which he in some measure succeeded, and would, no doubt, have brought it to perfection, if he had increased the size of his illuminating mirror. Some further improvements were made on this instrument by M. Ziehr; but the most perfect instrument of the kind, is that of Mr. B. Martin, who published an account of it in the year 1774.[21] The common solar microscope does not shew the surface of any object, whereas the opake solar microscope not only magnifies the object, but exhibits on a screen an expanded picture of its surface, with all its colours, in a most beautiful manner.
[20] Priestley’s Hist. of Optics, p. 743.
[21] Martin’s Description and Use of an Opake Solar Microscope. The merits and ingenuity in constructing and improving microscopes by this learned optician, seem to be unnoticed by our late author. The following pamphlets by Mr. B. Martin are, among others of his valuable publications, instances of his indefatigable industry. Description and Use of a Pocket Reflecting Microscope, with a Micrometer; 1739. Micrographia Nova, or a New Treatise on the Microscope; 1742. Description of a New Universal Microscope; a Postscript to his New Elements of Optics; 1759. Description of several Sorts of Microscopes, and the Use of the Reflecting Telescope, as an universal Perspective for viewing every Sort of Objects. Optical Essays; 1770. A Description and Use of a Proportional Camera Obscura, with a Solar Microscope adapted thereto, annexed to his Description of the Opake Solar Microscope above-mentioned. Description of a New Universal Microscope; 1776. Description and Use of a Graphical Perspective and Microscope; 1771. Microscopium Polydynamicum, or a New Construction of a Microscope; 1771. An Essay on the genuine Construction of a standard Microscope and Telescope; 1776. Microscopium Pantometricum, or a new Construction of a Micrometer adapted to the Microscope. The most essential articles in the above works will be hereafter described. EDIT.
About the year 1774, I invented the improved lucernal microscope; this instrument does not in the least fatigue the eye: it shews all opake objects in a most beautiful manner; and transparent objects may be examined by it in various ways, so that no part of an object is left unexplored; and the outlines of all may be taken with ease, even by those who are most unskilled in drawing.
M. L. F. Dellebarre published an account of his microscope in the year 1777. It does not appear from this, that it was superior in any respect to those that were made in England, but was inferior in others; for those published by my father in 1771 possessed all the advantages of Dellebarre’s in a higher degree, except that of changing the eye glasses.
In 1784, M. Æpinus published a description of what he termed new-invented microscopes, in a letter to the Academy of Sciences at Petersburgh;[22] they are nothing more than an application of the achromatic perspective to microscopic purposes. Now it has been long known to every one who is the least versed in optics, that any telescope is easily converted into a microscope, by removing the object glass to a greater distance from the eye glasses; and that the distance of the image varies with the distance of the object from the focus, and is magnified more as its distance from the object is greater: the same telescope may, therefore be successively turned into a microscope, with different magnifying powers. Mr. Martin had also shewn, in his description and use of a polydynamic microscope, how easily the small achromatic perspective may be applied to this purpose. Botanists might find some advantage in attending to this instrument; it would assist them in discovering small plants at a distance, and thus often save them from the thorns of the hedge, and the dirt of a ditch.
[22] Description des Nouveaux Microscopes inventes par M. Æpinus.
Fig. 1. Plate III, represents the improved lucernal microscope.
Fig. 1. Plate IV. The improved compound and single microscope.
Fig. 2. Plate IV. The best universal compound microscope.
Fig. 3. Plate IV, is what is usually called Culpeper’s, or the common three pillared compound microscope.
Fig. 1. Plate V, represents Martin’s solar opake microscope.
Fig. 4. Plate VI, is a picture of the common solar microscope.
Fig. 1. Plate VII. A, is Cuff’s common compound microscope.
Fig. 3. Plate VIII. Martin’s new microscopic telescope, or convenient portable apparatus for a traveller.
We cannot conclude this chapter better than with the following observations on the microscope. We are indebted to it for many discoveries in natural history; but let us not suppose that the Creator intended to hide these objects from our observation. It is true, this instrument discovers to us as it were a new creation, new series of animals, new forests of vegetables; but he who gave being to these, gave us an understanding capable of inventing means to assist our organs in the discovery of their hidden beauties. He gave us eyes adapted to enlarge our ideas, and capable of comprehending a universe at one view, and consequently incapable of discerning those minute beings, with which he has peopled every atom of the universe. But then he gave properties and qualities to matter of a particular kind, by which it would procure us this advantage, and at the same time elevated the understanding from one degree of knowledge to another, till it was able to discover these assistances for our sight.
It is thus we should consider the discoveries made by those instruments, which have received their birth from an exertion of our faculties. It is to the same power, who created the objects of our admiration, that we are ultimately to refer the means of discovering them. Let no one, therefore, accuse us of prying deeper into the wonders of nature, than was intended by the great author of the universe. There is nothing we discover by their assistance, which is not a fresh source of praise; and it does not appear that our faculties can be better employed, than in finding means to investigate the works of God.
From a partial consideration of these things, we are very apt to criticise what we ought to admire; to look upon as useless what perhaps we should own to be of infinite advantage to us, did we see a little farther; to be peevish where we ought to give thanks; and at the same time to ridicule those who employ their time and thoughts in examining what we were, i. e. some of us most assuredly were created and appointed to study. In short, we are too apt to treat the Almighty worse than a rational man would treat a good mechanic, whose works he would either thoroughly examine, or be ashamed to find any fault with them. This is the effect of a partial consideration of nature; but he who has candor of mind, and leisure to look farther, will be inclined to cry out:
How wond’rous is this scene! where all is form’d With number, weight, and measure! all design’d For some great end! where not alone the plant Of stately growth; the herb of glorious hue, Or food-full substance! not the laboring steed, The herd, and flock that feed us; not the mine That yields us stores for elegance and use; The sea that loads our table, and conveys The wanderer man from clime to clime, with all Those rolling spheres, that from on high shed down Their kindly influence; not these alone, Which strike ev’n eyes incurious, but each moss, Each shell, each crawling insect, holds a rank Important in the plan of Him, who fram’d This scale of beings; holds a rank, which lost, Would break the chain, and leave behind a gap Which nature’s self would rue. Almighty Being, Cause and support of all things, can I view These objects of my wonder; can I feel These fine sensations, and not think of thee? Thou who dost thro’ th’ eternal round of time, Dost thro’ th’ immensity of space exist Alone, shalt thou alone excluded be From this thy universe? Shall feeble man Think it beneath his proud philosophy To call for thy assistance, and pretend To frame a world, who cannot frame a clod?-- Not to know thee, is not to know ourselves-- Is to know nothing--nothing worth the care Of man’s exalted spirit:--all becomes, Without thy ray divine, one dreary gloom, Where lurk the monsters of phantastic brains, Order bereft of thought, uncaus’d effects, Fate freely acting, and unerring chance. Where meanless matter to a chaos sinks, Or something lower still, for without thee It crumbles into atoms void of force, Void of resistance--it eludes our thought. Where laws eternal to the varying code Of self-love dwindle. Interest, passion, whim, Take place of right and wrong, the golden chain Of beings melts away, and the mind’s eye Sees nothing but the present. All beyond Is visionary guess--is dream--is death.[23]
[23] Stillingfleet’s Miscellaneous Tracts.
CHAP. II.
OF VISION; OF THE OPTICAL EFFECT OF MICROSCOPES, AND OF THE MANNER OF ESTIMATING THEIR MAGNIFYING POWERS.
The progress that has been made in the science of optics, in the last and present century, particularly by Sir Isaac Newton, may with propriety be ranked among the greatest acquisitions of human knowledge. And Mess. Delaval and Herschel have shewn by their discoveries, that the boundaries of this science may be considerably enlarged.
The rays of light, which minister to the sense of sight, are the most wonderful and astonishing part of the inanimate creation; of which we shall soon be convinced, if we consider their extreme minuteness, their inconceivable velocity, the regular variety of colours they exhibit, the invariable laws according to which they are acted upon by other substances, in their reflections, inflections, and refractions, without the least change of their original properties; and the facility with which they pervade bodies of the greatest density and closest texture, without resistance, without crouding or disturbing each other. These, I believe, will be deemed sufficient proofs of the wonderful nature of these rays; without adding, that it is by a peculiar modification of them, that we are indebted for the advantages obtained by the microscope.
The science of optics, which explains and treats of many of the properties of those rays of light, is deduced from experiments, on which all philosophers are agreed. It is impossible to give an adequate idea of the nature of vision, without a knowledge of these experiments, and the mathematical reasoning grounded upon them; but as to do this would alone fill a large volume, I shall only endeavour to render some of the more general principles clear, that the reader, who is unacquainted with the science of optics, may nevertheless be enabled to comprehend the nature of vision by the microscope. Some of the most important of these principles may be deduced from the following very interesting experiment.
Darken a room, and let the light be admitted therein only by a small hole; then, if the weather be fine, you will see on the wall, which is facing the hole, a picture of all those exterior objects which are opposite thereto, with all their colours, though these will be but faintly seen. The image of the objects that are stationary, as trees, houses, &c. will appear fixed; while the images of those that are in motion, will be seen to move. The image of every object will appear inverted, because the rays cross each other in passing through the small hole. If the sun shine on the hole, we shall see a luminous ray proceed in a strait line, and terminate on the wall. If the eye be placed in this ray, it will be in a right line with the hole and the sun: it is the same with every other object which is painted on the wall. The images of the objects exhibited on the same plane, are smaller in proportion as the objects are further from the hole.
Many and important are the inferences which may be deduced from the foregoing experiment, among which are the following:
1. That light flows in a right line.
2. That a luminous point may be seen from all those places to which a strait line can be drawn from the point, without meeting with any obstacle; and consequently,
3. That a luminous point, by some unknown power, sends forth rays of light in all directions, and is the center of a sphere of light, which extends indefinitely on all sides; and if we conceive some of these rays to be intercepted by a plane, then is the luminous point the summit of a pyramid, whose body is formed by the rays, and its base by the intercepting plane. The image of the surface of an object, which is painted on the wall, is also the base of a pyramid of light, the apex of which is the hole; the rays which form this pyramid, by crossing at the hole, form another, similar and opposite to this, of which the hole is also the summit, and the surface of the object the base.
4. That an object is visible, because all its points are radiant points.
5. That the particles of light are indefinitely small; for the rays, which proceed from the points of all the objects opposite to the hole, pass through it, though extremely small, without embarrassing or confounding each other.
6. That every ray of light carries with it the image of the object from which it was emitted.
The nature of vision in the eye may be imperfectly illustrated by the experiment of the darkened room; the pupil of the eye being considered as the hole through which the rays of light pass, and cross each other, to paint on the retina, at the bottom of the eye, the inverted images of all those objects which are exposed to the sight, so that the diameters of the images of the same object are greater, in proportion to the angles formed at the pupil, by the crossing rays which proceed from the extremities of the object; that is, the diameter of the image is greater, in proportion as the distance is less; or, in other words, the apparent magnitude of an object is in some degree measured by the angle under which it is seen, and this angle increases or diminishes, according as the object is nearer to, or farther from the eye; and consequently, the less the distance is between the eye and the object, the larger the latter will appear.
From hence it follows, that the apparent diameter of an object seen by the naked eye, may be magnified in any proportion we please; for, as the apparent diameter is increased, in proportion as the distance from the eye is lessenned, we have only to lessen the distance of the object from the eye, in order to increase the apparent diameter thereof.[24] Thus, suppose there is an object, A B, Plate I. Fig. 1, which to an eye at E subtends or appears under the angle A E B, we may magnify the apparent diameter in what proportion we please, by bringing our eye nearer to it. If, for instance, we would magnify it in the proportion of F G to A B; that is, if we would see the object under an angle as large as F E G, or would make it appear the same length that an object as long as F G would appear, it may be done by coming nearer to the object. For the apparent diameter is as the distance inversely; therefore, if C D is as much less than C E, as F G is greater than A B, by bringing the eye nearer to the object in the proportion of C D to E D, the apparent diameter will be magnified in the proportion of F G to A B; so that the object A B, to the eye at D, will appear as long as an object F G would appear to the eye at E. In the same manner we might shew, that the apparent diameter of an object, when seen by the naked eye, may be infinite. For since the apparent diameter is reciprocally as the distance of the eye, when the distance of the eye is nothing or when the eye is close to the object at C, the apparent diameter will be the reciprocal of nothing, or infinite.
[24] Rutherforth’s System of Natural Philosophy, p. 330.
There is, however, one great inconvenience in thus magnifying an object, without the help of glasses, by placing the eye nearer to it. The inconvenience is, that we cannot see an object distinctly, unless the eye is about five or six inches from it; therefore, if we bring it nearer to our eye than five or six inches, however it may be magnified, it will be seen confusedly. Upon this account, the greatest apparent magnitude of an object that we are used to, is the apparent magnitude when the eye is about five or six inches from it: and we never place an object much within that distance; because, though it might be magnified by these means, yet the confusion would prevent our deriving any advantage from seeing it so large. The size of an object seems extraordinary, when viewed through a convex lens; not because it is impossible to make it appear of the same size to the naked eye, but because at the distance from the eye which would be necessary for this purpose, it would appear exceedingly confused; for which reason, we never bring our eye so near to it, and consequently, as we have not been accustomed to see the object of this size, it appears an extraordinary one.
On account of the extreme minuteness of the atoms of light, it is clear, a single ray, or even a small number of rays, cannot make a sensible impression on the organ of sight, whose fibres are very gross, when compared to these atoms; it is necessary, therefore, that a great number should proceed from the surface of an object, to render it visible. But as the rays of light, which proceed from an object, are continually diverging, different methods have been contrived, either of uniting them in a given point, or of separating them at pleasure: the manner of doing this is the subject of dioptrics and catoptrics.
By the help of glasses, we unite in the same sensible point a great number or rays, proceeding from one point of an object; and as each ray carries with it the image of the point from whence it proceeded, all the rays united must form an image of the object from whence they were emitted. This image is brighter, in proportion as there are more rays united; and more distinct, in proportion as the order, in which they proceeded, is better preserved in their union. This may be rendered evident; for, if a white and polished plane be placed where the union is formed, we shall see the image of the object painted in all its colours on this plane; which image will be brighter, if all adventitious light be excluded from the plane on which it is received.
The point of union of the rays of light, formed by means of a glass lens, &c. is called the FOCUS.
Now, as each ray carries with it the image of the object from whence it proceeded, it follows, that if those rays, after intersecting each other, and having formed an image at their intersection, are again united by a refraction or reflection, they will form a new image, and that repeatedly, as long as their order is not confounded or disturbed.
It follows also, that when the progress of the luminous ray is under consideration, we may look on the image as the object, and the object as the image; and consider the second image as if it had been produced by the first as an object, and so on.
In order to gain a clear idea of the wonderful effects produced by glasses, we must proceed to say something of the principles of refraction.
Any body, which is so constituted as to yield a passage to the rays of light, is called a MEDIUM. Air, water, glass, &c. are mediums of light. If any medium afford an easy passage to the rays of light, it is called a RARE MEDIUM; but if it do not afford an easy passage to these rays, it is called a DENSE MEDIUM.
Let Z, Fig. 2. Plate I. be a rare medium, and Y a dense one; and let them be separated by the plane surface G H. Let I K be a perpendicular to it, and cutting it in C.
With the center C, and any distance, let a circle be described. Then let A C be a ray of light, falling upon the dense medium. This ray, if nothing prevented, would go forward to L; but because the medium Y is supposed to be denser than Z, it will be bent downward toward the perpendicular I K, and describe the line C B.