THE ENVOY 383 
with Malpighi’s pleasing clarity and Grew’s systematic 
thoroughness, create a painful impression of superficiality 
and amateurishness.””* A similar opinion of Leeuwenhoek’s 
work in general has, moreover, been recently expressed by one 
of his own compatriots (Becking, 1924), who sees in him 
merely “a pair of eyes, a pair of hands, directed by other 
minds. For when his own mind tried to direct, he could 
produce nothing but chaos.” ‘This is surely a strange estimate 
of the almost wilfully independent Leeuwenhoek I know—who 
certainly produced something very different from chaos when 
he discovered the Protozoa and the Bacteria! But even for 
these discoveries Becking allows Leeuwenhoek little credit: he 
avers that “although he was the first to see bacteria, yeasts 
and protozoa, we can not look upon him as the founder of 
microbiology.” Despite his obviously great knowledge’ of 
Leeuwenhoek, and his own distinction in other branches of 
learning, I am unable to judge of Becking’s competence in 
protozoology—since he has not (to my knowledge) contributed 
as yet anything to the advancement of that science. His 
evaluation of Leeuwenhoek may, however, be contrasted with 
that of the only man of our times who possessed a profound 
knowledge both of the Protozoa themselves and of proto- 
zoological history. He not only respected and admired 
Leeuwenhoek’s work, but he even dedicated one of his own 
most important memoirs to his memory.” 
Other biologists have already honoured Leeuwenhoek in 
their own peculiar way by naming various organisms after him. 
It is true no protozoon or bacterium or other “little animal ” 
1 Sachs (1875), p. 264; translated. I have good reasons for believing 
that these words were actually plagiarized from an earlier and less-known 
author. 
2 Becking writes as one who knows all about L., and he says that “ the 
uncritical praise of his commentators and biographers can only be ascribed 
to an insufficient knowledge of his works and that of his contemporaries.” 
Considering Becking’s greater knowledge, I confess that at first I found it 
difficult to understand how he could refer to L. as “a humble lens-grinder ”’, 
who was ‘a patrician’s son”? and “had many children’’, ete. But such 
obvious misstatements of fact are to be explained, doubtless, by his con- 
viction that “What really matters in a biography is not the so-called 
biographical datum.”’ I differ from him in believing that accurate data are 
the szne qua non of any biography. 
3 Biitschli (1876). 
