44 Ancient Microscopes. 
“Election Entertainment,” containing the words, “Give us our 
eleven days,” which shows how unpopular this reform of the 
calendar was, and how it was resented by the people as an 
arbitrary interference with their social life. 
A few words of further explanation will close this article. 
Dates previous to 1752 are likely to mislead us only in the 
months of January, February, and March, for these are the 
only months whose place has been changed. Consequently, 
in the dates of letters prior to 1752 we often see both years 
put down, but only in these three months. Take, for illustra- 
tion, Oglethorpe’s letters from Savannah, as published in the 
Historical Society’s collections, where occur the dates February 
27, 173%, March 17, 173%, January 29, 1738, etc., all of which, 
by new style, are to be considered the latter year. As these 
dates, however, are copies of the MSS. letters, the true days of 
the month, according to our reckoning, must be obtained by 
adding eleven days to each date. This does not apply, of 
course, to published dates in English history, for they have 
already been rectified to suit the new style, of which, besides 
the case of Washington’s, Franklin’s birth is an example, whose 
date is received as January 17, though it is known to have 
occurred on the 6th. 
Ancient Microscopes. 
FEW evenings ago, Mr. Frank Crisp, Vice-President 
and Treasurer of the Linnzan Society and one of 
the Secretaries of the Royal Microscopical Society, 
gave a most interesting lecture at the Royal Institu- 
tion on ‘Ancient Microscopes.” Mr. Crisp is well 
known to possess one of the finest collections of microscopes in 
the world, and to have spent a fortune in making it; and the 
members and friends were aware also that the lecture would be 
illustrated by rare specimens of microscopes of bygone make. 
The audience, which was a large one, spent a delightful hour in 
front of these strange scientific instruments, under the genial 
guidance of the lecturer, who explained that a more correct title 
for his address would have been ‘Ancient microscopes in their 
relation to modern thought.” Regarding the word ancient as, 
after all, only a relative term, Mr. Crisp stated that from the 
microscopist’s point of view he designated as ancient those 
persons who lived more than a hundred years ago, and those, 
microscopes which were made in or before the last century. 
Before discussing the merits and shortcomings of their ancestors, 
