256 THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MICKOSCOPE 



At the same time we do not blind ourselves to the fact that 

 ;ni English market for the ' Hartnaek ' model has had very 

 iiiucli to do with the perpetuation of the errors which that form 

 contains. 



The reason of this it is not difficult to trace. The inductive 

 nirtliml ;idv;inct'd lint slowly, in practice, upon the professional 

 activities, and even the professional training, of medical men. The 

 country \\hirh \\;is the home of Bacon and Newton and Harvey and 

 Hunter theoretically accepted, but was not quick to apply, the 

 methods of induction to the work of its medical schools. Theory and 

 empiricism held a powerful place in both the teaching and practice 

 of medicine in England until the earlier years of the present century. 

 Medicine was absolutely unaffected by Bacon until the latter half of 

 the se\ ei it ecu I h rent ii TV. It was not until the early years of this cen- 

 turv that the modern school of medicine began its beneficent career. 

 But at that time (//> microscope one of the most powerful instru- 

 ments which can be thought of in the application of experimental 

 and deductive methods to the science of medicine was looked upon 

 and treated by the faculty as a philosophical toy, a mere plaything 

 for the rich iliii'tfu ute. But in spite of this the microscope was 

 brought gradually to a high state of perfection, and by the end of 

 the first third of the century was remarkably advanced as a practical 

 inst rumeiit, all its essentials being more or less completely developed. 

 .Meanwhile, on the Continent the microscope was regarded by the 

 I ''acuity as a scientific instrument of great and increasing value, 

 being used to good purpose in making important discoveries in 

 anatomy, histology, and biology generally. 



This was gradually realised in, this country, and there arose 

 slowly a desire to employ the same instrument in England. But. 

 although English instruments of the most practical and relatively 

 perfect kind, representing the large experience of many careful 

 amateurs, \\ere easilv accessible to our medical men in their own 

 country because it was on the Continent that the investigations 

 referred to had been made it was nothing less than the Continental 

 microscope that was sought after and obtained. We have been told, 

 indeed, that 'the development of the English stands has not 

 depended on the wants of the microscopist,' but has been the result 

 of ingenuity and invent ion. To this we simply say that it may be 

 true that their de\elopment has not depended on the immedil<- 

 wants of the microscopist, but was in many cases the result not of 

 ingenuity so much as of powerful insight and foresight. And how 

 "('ten have these anticipations been realised! Because early obser- 

 vations i, fa hislological character (and therefore of a nature to lie 

 beyond the sphere of the lay amateur) had been successfully made 

 \\ith a cei-tain form of microscope on the Continent, it was practi- 

 cally argued that this must be the most suitable instrument for such 

 a purpose ; luit this was an inference made without knowledge of or 

 reference to the well known English models. 



US carefully examine this instrument. The typical form 



hat made hy llailiiack. Seen in its primitive state, we have 



catalogues of all 1 he Continental makers Zeiss, Leitz, 



