352 LEEUWENHOEK AND HIS ‘“ LITTLE ANIMALS ” 
London, July 19, 1914. No. 106” (de Groot, 1916: Vol. VI, 
p.531). Whether this is a genuine portrait or not I do not 
know. I have been unable to trace it further. I can only 
add that according to Art Prices Current, 1913-1914 (Vol. VI, 
pp. 307, 505), the picture was not the property of Lady Chandos- 
Pole, but belonged to Maj.-Gen. Sterling, of 249 Knightsbridge, 
London, and was sold at Sotheby’s on 29 April 1914 for £46: 
while later in the same year (10 July 1914—not 19 July, as 
stated by de Groot) it is said* to have been resold at Christie’s 
for £120. 15s. 
Notwithstanding the allegations of de Groot and others, 
there seems to be still no satisfactory evidence to prove that 
any portrait of Leeuwenhoek was ever painted by Maes: but 
the matter obviously needs further investigation. 
(3) By ADRIAEN VAN OsTADE (1610-1685: born at Haarlem, 
where he worked and died). See Moes (1905; Vol. IT, p. 12) 
No. 4415 (1): de Groot (1910; Vol. IIT, p. 410) No. 876.—De 
Groot calls this a “ Portrait of Anthonie van Leewwenhoek (1632- 
1722), physicist and surgeon of Haarlem”’,” and he describes 
the picture thus: “ He sits, turned three-quarters left, and 
leans his left arm on the table and his right hand on his hip. 
He wears a black costume with a white collar and brown 
gloves. In front of him are a book and a celestial globe. 
Signed in full at the foot of the globe, and dated 1665; panel, 
81 inches by 7 inches.” This portrait is stated to have been 
sold in Paris on 2 May 1865 (Sale H. de Kat, No. 63). Ihave 
been unable to find it. I may note, however, that what 
appears to be a copy in black chalk, by A. Delfos, is preserved 
in the Municipal Museum at Delft. It is a poor portrait (if it 
be one) and bears little resemblance to the authentic pictures 
of Leeuwenhoek, though the face recalls many of the peasants 
portrayed in Ostade’s other paintings. 
Adriaen van Ostade was no portrait-painter (and in my 
opinion a very poor artist): and at present I am not convinced 
that he ever attempted to paint a portrait of Leeuwenhoek— 
or, if he did, that it is now in existence. 
1 Tt is also there said to represent ‘“‘ Lieuvenhoch, the father of the 
Microscope”! 
2 There are 5 obvious errors in these dozen words. 
