54 LEEUWENHOEK AND HIS “‘ LITTLE ANIMALS 
the manuscript record of the proceedings of the meeting held 
on 4 March 1699, at which each member ‘nominated his 
correspondents’ (correspondant in the etymological sense of 
the word). A physician, Burlet, nominated Leeuwenhoek— 
‘well known by virtue of what he had been able to observe by 
the use of the microscope.’ One may therefore say that 
Leeuwenhoek was a ‘correspondant’ of the old Académie des 
Sciences: his name also figures in some printed lists. Was he 
informed of this officially? No letter of thanks from him is 
in existence, nor is there any manuscript of his elsewhere in 
our Archives.” 
I conclude, therefore, that Leeuwenhoek was “ nominated” 
as a “corresponding member”—but never elected a full 
Member—of the Académie in 1699, and probably without his 
knowledge: for I can find no reference to the subject in any 
of his own letters, and there appear to be no extant letters of 
his, either published or in manuscript, addressed to Burlet or 
to the Academy or to any other member thereof (except 
Huygens). In any case, the event was without influence upon 
his activities. No scientific society except the Royal Society 
enrolled him as a member during his lifetime, though many 
have honoured him since his death.’ His name is forever 
ae to the Royal Society of London, and to that Society 
alone. 
As soon as his discoveries became famous, Leeuwenhoek 
was visited by all manner of people who wanted to look through 
his glasses. The list of celebrities who went to see him is a 
long one, and has been drawn up more or less completely and 
accurately by various writers.” I need not give it here: for 
nobody believes nowadays that scientific truth depends upon 
literary or political authority or royal assent. Leeuwenhoek 
himself—being a common man—naturally felt flattered when a 
King or Queen of England, an Emperor of Germany, or a Tsar 
of Russia called upon him. It impressed his fellow-citizens and 
advanced his reputation, but he frankly confessed (in one of 
his letters to Magliabechi) that he was bored by such interrup- 
tions, and preferred to be left in peace to carry on his work. 
" Cf. Harting (1876). The statement that L. was a Fellow of “ the Royal 
College of Physicians in London” (Nieuwenhuis, 1859) is an error due, 
apparently, to confusion of this body with the Royal Society. 
* e.g. Halbertsma (1843), Haaxman (1875), etc. 
