302 LEEUWENHOEK AND HIS “‘ LITTLE ANIMALS” 
still without van, but with final -/ in place of -ck. Letter 43 
(5 Jan. 1685) is the first one signed “‘ Anton} van Leeuwenhoek ”’ 
—with long i, with van, and with -/: and thereafter he appears 
generally to have written his name thus—that is, for the last 
38 years of his life. In the year 1685-6, however, he himself 
seems to have been in some perplexity regarding his signature : 
for Letters 44 (23 Jan. 1685), 46 (13 July 1685), and 48 
(22. Jan. 1686) are again signed “‘ Antonj Leeuwenhoek ”, while 
Letter 45 (30 Mar. 1685) is signed “A: v: Leeuwenhoek ” 
and Letter 47 (12 Oct. 1685) simply “‘A: Leeuwenhoek.” ’ 
Examples of his signature at different dates are shown in 
Plates V, X, and XXIX. 
In the Dutch published letters, the long 7 of the forename 
was generally printed as a short <—though sometimes as a y. 
It is therefore questionable whether “ Antoni” or “ Antony” 
is to be preferred. I adopt the latter spelling as it is conform- 
able with English usage,” and because an English y is a 
justifiable equivalent of the long 7. We have in English no 
such letter; and a terminal 7 not only appears strange to us, 
but may even lead—as I can testify from experience—to 
ludicrous mispronunciation of the name. I may add, for the 
information of English readers, that the name ‘“ Antony” is 
not accented on the first syllable in Dutch (as it is in English), 
but on the second: Antény—not Antony. 
On the memorial—in the Old Church at Delft—erected to 
Antony. by his daughter Maria, the full name is latinized as 
Antonius a Leeuwenhoek (the form in which it usually appears 
in the Latin translations * of his works). But curiously enough 
the Dutch inscription on the stone slab covering his grave gives 
' Haaxman (1875, p. 6 note) has already discussed the proper spelling of 
L.’s name, and adopted the same spelling as I do: but he had seen only a 
small percentage of the extant MSS.—having consulted none of those in the 
Roy. Soe. collection—and therefore had not the support (which I can claim) 
of some 150 autograph signatures. Had he seen these, he would probably 
have expressed his opinion more emphatically. 
* Though L.’s chief Dutch biographer—Haaxman (1871, 1875)—also 
invariably styles him ‘“ Antony,” Bouricius (1924, 1925), for reasons which 
are not evident, prefers to call him ‘“ Anthony”; while Schierbeek (1930) 
now names him “ Anthoni,’ and some other recent Dutch writers 
“* Anthonie.”’ 
* Antonius de Leeuwenhoek also occurs, and possibly accounts for some 
recent writers’ miscalling him ‘‘ de Leeuwenhoek”’ (instead of van L.). 
