244 LEEUWENHOEK AND HIS ‘‘ LITTLE ANIMALS ”’ 
for about the width of a horse-hair, where, to all appear- 
ance, it had not been scoured by the salt for a few days ; * 
and there were such an enormous number of living 
animalcules here, that I imagined I could see a good 1000 
of ’em in a quantity of this material that was no bigger 
than a hundredth part of a sand-grain.’ 
It must be noted here that the illustrations accompanying 
the foregoing letter differ slightly in each version. The 
original drawings are, unfortunately, lost: and the_ best 
figures—those now reproduced—are in the original Latin 
edition (Arc. Nat. Det., 1695) and Opera Omnia. From the 
first Dutch edition® (1684) Fig. G, a highly important 
picture, was for some unexplained reason omitted altogether." 
In the first Phil. Trans. version (1684) all the figures appear, 
but Fig. G has an irregular and unrecognizable shape: while 
in the second Phil. Trans. version (1693) Fig. G again 
disappears, and the others are reversed.’ 
A plausible explanation of these discrepancies is the 
following. The figures originally sent by Leeuwenhoek to the 
Royal Society were badly drawn and poorly engraved, and he 
was probably dissatisfied with them—especially with Fig. G, 
which was very bad. When he was about to publish the 
same pictures himself later in the same year, he resolved to 
have this figure redrawn, and therefore told the engraver not 
to copy the original. Then, by an oversight, the letter was 
printed with the figure missing. later, discovering his 
mistake, Leeuwenhoek had a new and improved drawing 
’ The Latin version inserts here ‘‘ materiam illam inde exemi’’ [=so I 
extracted some of this stuff], but this is not in the Dutch originals. 
2 The sentences in the foregoing paragraph are loosely strung together 
and ungrammatical in the original: and consequently they are not easy to 
translate into intelligible English without “ improving ’’ beyond recognition. 
If the reader should find my version inelegant and confused, I would refer 
him to its prototype—which is much worse. 
® In the only copy of the 2nd Dutch edition of L.’s works which I have 
yet seen, the whole letter containing these observations (No. 39) is 
missing—the copy being otherwise perfect. 
* It is referred to, however, in the text (both MS. and printed Dutch 
version). 
’ This is obviously due to the engraver’s direct copying of the original 
drawings on to his plate. 
