70 LEEUWENHOEK AND HIS “‘ LITTLE ANIMALS ”’ 
inspired by dislike and jealousy. I shall not quote his 
words, as they have already been repeated by Haaxman 
(1875) and others, and are not worthy of further consideration. 
It is now abundantly evident that Hartsoeker had wronged 
Leeuwenhoek, and therefore hated him; while on his side 
Leeuwenhoek despised Hartsoeker and treated him with 
contempt. All this can be read in their various references 
to one another.” When he was very young, Hartsoeker—who 
had visited Leeuwenhoek with his father, and had been 
shown or had heard of the discovery of the spermatozoa— 
went to Paris, and there tried to palm off this discovery as 
his own. He did not succeed—though there are still 
credulous or ignorant writers who accept his claims *—and 
when the facts became known he was reduced to silence. 
More than forty years later, when Leeuwenhoek had at last 
died, Hartsoeker attempted to blacken his character and 
reasserted his own priority *: but he himself died before his 
malicious remarks were published (1730), so that he was 
denied the final satisfaction of kicking Leeuwenhoek’s corpse 
in public. Hartsoeker was a man of undoubted ability, but 
quarrelsome and arrogant and in every way the very 
antithesis of Leeuwenhoek. He attacked and found fault 
with everybody he envied—not only Leeuwenhoek, but also 
Newton, Leibniz, and even Christiaan Huygens (who had 
befriended him)—and his foolish criticisms and _ personal 
complaints are now best consigned to the oblivion which 
they deserve. On his own confession he was virtually 
turned out of the house by Leeuwenhoek when he last 
attempted, by a subterfuge, to visit him. I _ shall 
therefore treat Hartsoeker likewise here,’ and give him 
"See Hartsoeker (1730), Extrait critique, passim. 
* See L.’s letters and Hartsoeker’s publications passim: also Cuvres 
Compl. de Chr. Huygens—especially Vol. VIII. 
* Cf. Martin (1764), Launois (1904), ete. 
“ Hartsoeker’s claims to the discovery of the spermatozoa have recently 
been critically considered and correctly assessed by Cole (1930). 
° I must add, however, that I have carefully and impartially read all the 
available evidence concerning Hartsoeker’s relations with L. Consequently 
I am well aware that much already written on this subject is incorrect, 
though it seems to me unnecessary to discuss all the data here. French 
writers especially—doubtless influenced by Fontenelle—have, in general, 
