HISTORY OF PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY.

510

Among the Acts of the States General preserved in the GovernmentArchives at the Hague, Van Swinden found some interesting documentsrelative to the spectacle maker of Middleburg, alluded to in the petitionof Metius. On the 2nd of October, 1608, the Assembly of the Statestook into consideration the petition of John Lipperhey, spectacle maker,a rative of Wesel , and an inhabitant of Middleburg, inventor of an in-strument for seeing at a distance. A committee was appointed to conferwi.h Lipperhey, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it might not bepossible to improve the instrument so as to enable one to look through itwith both eyes. On the 4th of the same month it was resolved that certain■of the members should test the instrument of Lipperhey, by observingwith it from the turret of Prince Maurice’s mansion. It was furtherresolved, that if the perspective should be found useful, an engagementshould be entered into with the inventor, to execute three such instrumentsof rock crystal, and that he should be enjoined not to divulge the inventionto anybody. On the 6th of the same month, the Assembly agreed to giveLipperhey 900 florins for such an instrument. On the 15th of Decemberthey examined the instrument invented by Lipperhey to see with botheyes, and approved of it; but as many others had a knowledge of thisnew invention to see at a distance, tlie} r did not deem it expedient togrant him an exclusive privilege to execute such instruments. How-ever, they gave him orders to execute, for the use of the Government,two other instruments to see with both eyes, allowing him the sameremuneration for his services as in the first instance.

The evidence afforded by the documents found among the manuscriptsof Huyghens , restores to Janies Metius his right to the invention of thetelescope, which had not been taken notice of in Borel’s book, and wasprobably allowed, in consequence, to fall into oblivion. It would seemalso, from the same document, that the telescopes of Metius could bear acomparison in point of efficiency with those constructed about the sametime by another individual. However, as this statement rests entirelyupon his own authority, and as he does not appear to have given thebenefit of his invention to the world, we cannot consider his labours to beentitled to much consideration. The other documents prove that Lip-perhey was in possession of the invention as early as October, 1608,and therefore that he could not have been indebted for his views on thesubject to Jansen, who, according to William Boreel’s letter, succeededin constructing telescopes only in the year 1610. No mention of Jansencould be found in any of the State Ilecords, and as his right to theoriginal invention of the telescope is set aside by the authentic documentsin favour of Lipperhey, there only remains to be claimed for him theinvention of the microscope, upon the evidence set forth in Borel’s book.We may conclude, then, that Lipperhey was the person who originallyexecuted telescopes, and also that he was the first who made them knownto the world ; and, therefore, upon these grounds he possesses a justclaim to the honour associated with the invention..

It is quite clear that Lipperhey must have been no common artizan, fromhis adapting his invention so readily to the views of the Assembly of theStates General . The worthy individuals composing that Assembly wereby no means satisfied with an instrument that was destined to penetrateinto the immensity of space, and reveal the existence of unnumberedworlds, unless it was so executed as to enable them to see through it withboth eyes. We have seen that a telescope of this construction wasactually supplied to them by Lipperhey, and that upon its being sub-