-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES
Jutta SchickoreIndiana University Bloomington
INTRODUCTION: LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM HISTORY OF TEST
OBJECTS
This article examines test objects for microscopes: specic
objects designated to test the quality and performance of these
instruments.1 I trace the history of these objects to understand
the development of microscopy as a research technique and the
methodological concerns of its practitioners. Test objects can be
historicized in two ways. First, test objects themselves have a
history: they emerged in particular social and scientic contexts;
the contexts of application multiplied; and the requirements for
good test objects changed over time. Secondly, test objects are
part of a long-term history of evaluation criteria for microscopes.
Since the seventeenth century, practitioners have assessed the
quality and performance of their instruments; but over the
centuries the evaluation criteria and procedures have changed. In
what follows, I consider both the short-term history of test
objects and their role in the long-term development of microscopy
as a research technique.
My article extends the scope of Graeme Goodays study of late
Victorian micro-scopy.2 Gooday has described the practical problems
experimental physicists and biologists faced in their attempts to
get their devices to work reliably. He shows that the microscopists
turned their attention to the effective management of the physical
environment in which they practised their research, seeking to
obtain stability in the optical instruments as well as in the
investigative setting. While the practitioners agreed that
successful microscopical observation required the effective
management of working environments and that illumination and lens
construction were the key factors in microscopical observations,
they disagreed as to what constituted the best ways and means of
management.3 Gooday also draws attention to the practitioners
reports of the disturbances, interference, and impediments they had
encountered in their work. He argues that these reports were
crucial to establish the credibility of the practitioners.
Like Gooday, I examine the practitioners efforts to stabilize
the conditions of micro-scopical observation and, in particular, of
reliable testing. But my historiographical perspective is different
in that I put the debates and practices surrounding test objects
centre stage. Gooday concludes that in the longer term,
microscopists succeeded in stabilizing their working environment.
But as I show in this essay, the practice of using test objects
never became fully stabilized. Tracing the history of the test
objects through the second half of the nineteenth century, one nds
that the criteria for good test objects in fact became more and
more problematic as they were further specied. Moreover, it turned
out that these requirements could never be fully met.
My essay has four parts. The rst three sections examine the
short-term history
0073-2753/09/4702-0117/$10.00 2009 Science History Publications
Ltd
Hist. Sci., xlvii (2009)
-
118 JUTTA SCHICKORE
of test objects. I begin with a brief sketch of the intellectual
and social contexts in which test objects were introduced and trace
their swift establishment as key tools of microscopic practice. I
show that in the second third of the nineteenth century, the
contexts for testing multiplied, and test objects came to be used
as reference points to draw boundaries between different groups of
practitioners: the microscope enthusiast, the (mere) practitioner,
and the (real) man of science. The second part traces various
aspects of the career of test objects. I show how the preoccupation
with tests and testing posed several new challenges to the
practitioners and even had destabilizing effects. Uniformity,
familiarity, and difculty of test objects emerged as crucial
requirements for successful testing. But the practitioners
continuing strug-gles to identify good test objects that could meet
these criteria and to specify ideal testing situations indicate
that these requirements could not be fully met and indeed that it
was not even clear what they meant.4 In the third part I draw out
the dynamics of the career of test objects and show that the
practice of using tests was never fully stabilized. Close to the
limits of resolution, there was always a trade-off between
epistemic gain and risk.
The concluding section characterizes the role test objects
played in the long-term history of criteria and procedures for
quality checks for microscopes. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
microscopists too assessed their instruments; but over the
centuries the evaluation criteria and procedures changed. The
introduction of test objects profoundly transformed the ways in
which microscopes and microscopical observations were evaluated.
Test objects made the practitioners realize that micro-scopes had
to be assessed on a large number of different properties, and that
it was impossible to make a microscope that was perfect in all
respects.
ASTRONOMY, NATURAL HISTORY, AND THE MULTIPLICATION OF CONTEXTS
FOR TESTING
Test objects emerged in early nineteenth-century Britain in a
social context that was conducive to comparison and competition.
Microscope enthusiasts scientic gentlemen, medical doctors, and
instrument makers often came together to study curious microscopic
objects. Instruments were brought to these informal gatherings,
their mechanical and optical properties were compared, and people
discussed how well they fared.
In the early decades of the nineteenth century, different types
of microscopes were available from a variety of makers. At that
time, simple microscopes often outperformed compound microscopes,
which suffered more from various kinds of aberrations. But simple
microscopes were rather awkward to use and had a narrow eld of
vision, and therefore many people were hoping to advance the
optical per-formance of compound microscopes. One of them was the
physician and microscope enthusiast Charles Goring. He occupied
himself with natural history, had a keen interest in astronomy and
optics, and kept various instrument makers busy with sug-gestions
as to how to improve the performance of compound microscopes.
Gorings experiments on the instrument established that a range
of material fac-tors conditioned the effectiveness of a compound
microscope. In particular, he noted
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 119
that one cause of the inferiority of compound microscopes was a
small aperture. To account for this fact, Goring appropriated the
term that had been introduced to characterize the optical
performance of telescopes, namely, penetrating power. In 1800, the
astronomer William Herschel had coined the term to refer to a
telescopes power of making faint and distant stars visible, and he
had used distant clusters of stars to ascertain the penetrating
power of telescopes.5
Goring appropriated both the term and the procedure. Combining
the concepts and practices of contemporaneous astronomy with
natural history, he suggested using organic objects with ne lines
and patterns as reference points to evaluate microscopes. In
several publications from the late 1820s, Goring described and
depicted diverse objects that were suitable for this purpose, such
as insect wings and ies feet. Goring called such objects test
objects. Echoing Herschel, he dened a test object as some object
which can only be seen by a microscope single or compound, which
possesses a great quantity of good distinct light (the result of a
large and perfect aperture).6 Goring explicitly called the test
object a standard of comparison, whereby to scruti-nize the
pretensions, the defects, and excellencies of different
microscopes, and prove beyond dispute whether they are effective or
not.7 His co-worker, the instrument maker Andrew Pritchard, again
made the connection to astronomy explicit. In an essay exclusively
devoted to test objects, Pritchard noted that since the discovery
of double stars and nebulae, telescopes had to undergo more severe
tests, and greater accuracy in their construction is required. What
has been advanced in regard to the telescope will be found
applicable to the microscope.8
It is a little odd to ascribe penetrating power the telescopes
power of reach-ing out into the depth of space to microscopes.
Gorings optical theories were not well received. His appropriation
of Herschels notion of penetrating power to microscopes sparked
heated debates about whether it was correct to apply that term and
what exactly penetrating power was. Goring soon began using
denition or dening power, and the introduction of this term further
complicated the debate. The discussions appear rather obscure to
the twenty-rst-century reader because they pertain to the physical
causes for certain optical properties of microscopes and at the
same time to the appropriateness of the terms for those
properties.
A few examples may illustrate the situation. In his
comprehensive manual of microscopy, for instance, Pieter Harting
foresaw great confusion over the term penetrating power because
some practitioners had begun using it to denote a measure for the
depth of the visual eld.9 Indeed, in his instruction manual The
microscope and its revelations William Carpenter distinguished
penetrating power or focal depth from both resolving and dening
power.10 The botanists Carl Ngeli and Simon Schwendener also
claimed that the microscopes so-called penetrating power was
something entirely different than the telescopes penetrating power.
However, unlike Carpenter, they noted: It is always the oblique
rays, which penetrate and the central rays, which dene, but
actually both do the same.11 They complained that the introduction
of test objects had produced the unclear notions of penetrating and
dening power in the rst place.12 Other practitioners took issue
with Gorings
-
120 JUTTA SCHICKORE
ideas about the working of the microscope. They debated whether
penetrating power was a defect or an advantage,13 whether a larger
aperture was always advantageous,14 and so on. Even in the last
decades of the nineteenth century, no agreement had been reached
about these issues. But with the benet of hindsight one may say
that the perhaps unjustied transfer of an astronomical concept to
another context was pro-ductive despite or perhaps because of the
confusion it caused, as these debates certainly contributed to the
understanding of the microscopes working.
In contrast, the practice of using test objects was quickly
adopted. Within a few years, all over Britain and the Continent
nely-lined objects were used to evaluate the performance of the
microscope. One can nd reports in journals of social gatherings
where microscopes were tried with test objects.15 A couple of years
after Gorings articles had appeared, the Viennese physicist and
microscopist J. v. Jacquin praised Dr. Goring in London, who had
been the rst to draw attention to test objects.16 Test objects were
sent to France so that French microscopists might try their
microscopes on them,17 and on the other side of the Atlantic, test
objects were also in use. Instru-ment makers sold their microscopes
together with sets of test objects.18 Anatomists began to tell
their readers what test objects their microscopes were able to
display, so as to prove that their observations were reliable.
Instruction manuals and textbooks of microscopy included detailed
sections on test objects, and entirely new contexts and goals for
testing opened up. In the remaining part of this section, I
characterize the main contexts and purposes of testing.
The initial, comparative use of tests continued to dominate the
social gatherings of microscope enthusiasts. In the late 1820s,
Thomas Gill, the editor of the journal Technical repository; or,
discoveries and improvements in the useful arts, repeatedly printed
reports of get-togethers at which different types of microscopes
from various makers were put to test and compared. In 1827, the
assembled gentlemen even had the opportunity to witness how well
English microscopes fared in comparison with those produced by
Giovanni Battista Amici. The renowned Italian instrument maker
visited London at that time and had brought his microscopes along.
He participated in the social gatherings of microscope enthusiasts
and his microscopes were tried with various tests.19
The preoccupation with test objects and particularly the public
trials and competi-tions stimulated exchanges anong practitioners,
instrument makers, and microscope enthusiasts. Test objects thus
became motors of technological advancement. This is a noteworthy
point because many of these competitions were staged by microscope
enthusiasts or what one today would call amateurs. These scientic
gentlemen who were perhaps not immediately involved in scientic
research were ideally placed to communicate with and challenge
instrument makers to develop improved instruments. Gills reports
show that the English instrument makers who were impressed by the
performance of Amicis microscopes set out to utilize Amicis
principles in their own workshops.20 Already in 1833, Pritchard
attributed the grand and magnicent improvements which the
microscope has recently received to the discovery of objects that
may be considered as tests of the penetrating and dening powers of
this
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 121
instrument.21 At that time, this may have been largely an
expression of optimism, but the interactions between microscope
enthusiast and instrument makers surely were incentives for the
artisans.
Several practitioners explicitly mentioned that their engagement
with particu-lar test objects had spurred their ambition and
declared that the engagement with test objects was benecial to
microscope making. Others even suggested specic directions of
research into microscope technology.22 In 1870, some fty years
after Goring and Pritchards rst articles, the British geologist
James Scott Bowerbank reminisced about how he and his friends had
carefully assessed every new improve-ment of lens combinations with
test objects, thus having done their best to incite the makers to
aspire to the greatest possible perfection in the construction of
their object-glasses.23
There was an element of national rivalry often friendly, at
times erce in the comparisons of microscopes, something one can
also nd in contemporaneous glass and telescope making.24 Both Gill
and the instrument maker Pritchard used test objects as vehicles to
perform comparisons across the Channel. Gill reported that the
eminent French opticians, Chevalier & Sons, of Paris had
written to him and requested that a few test objects be sent over
to them. Gill told his readers that he had been pleased to comply
with their request and sent them various kinds, and among them
those of the brassica and podura, desiring them to favour me with
the result of their examination: and by this days post (August
5th), I received a letter from them complying with my request, and
accompanied with drawings of the two scales, as they appeared under
their microscope.25 Pritchard also noted that some of the test
objects he and Goring had singled out were immediately transported,
that our neighbours the French might try their microscopes on
them.26
Test objects even travelled all the way to America.27 The letter
written in the 1840s by the naturalist and professor at West Point,
Jacob Bailey, to the instrument maker Charles Spencer illustrates
both the interactions between instrument maker and prac-titioner
and the amicable competition between the English and the Americans.
Bailey reported how excited his London correspondent had been when
he had received the latest American test objects. He and his
friends had tried it immediately and could make nothing of it, even
with the nest Smith, Ross, and Powell glasses. Now the Englishman
was desperate to have an object glass made by Spencer and inquired
about the costs. Bailey advised Spencer not to send anything over
until you are sure of astonishing the natives.28
National rivalry in the instrument making business and the
competition between English, American, and Continental makers
continued throughout the century;29 and designated test objects
provided the tools for the competition even across long dis-tances.
In 1888, the American microscopist H. J. Detmers reported to the
American Society of Microscopists his efforts to establish how the
best American instruments compared with the best European ones. He
submitted to the Society some photo-micrographs of the then common
test object, the diatom Amphipleura pellucida, as well as of
bacteria. He had made the images with a microscope objective
produced
-
122 JUTTA SCHICKORE
by the American maker Robert Tolles. Detmers challenged those
among his com-patriots who still did not trust American instruments
to produce better photomicro-graphs with their European
microscopes. On a trip to Europe, Detmers had visited three major
German optical rms, Leitz and Seibert & Seibert in Wetzlar
together with Zeiss in Jena. Detmers stated that all three
opticians had been impressed by his photomicrographs and that
especially the images of Amphipleura had been the best they had
ever seen.30 Both Zeiss and Robert Koch famous for his work on
bacteria and on microphotography had given him photographs of
Amphipleura and of bacteria, which he submitted to the Society for
inspection. Detmers pointed out that unlike the images he had
produced, neither of the German photographs was free of diffraction
lines. In conclusion, he stressed that he was more than ever
convinced that the renowned German instruments did not in any way
surpass the best American ones.31
In addition to the function of test objects as tools for
comparison and competition, Gorings initial denition of test object
emphasized the role of these objects as quality checks. By
displaying the strengths and weaknesses, scope, and peculiarities
of individual instruments, test objects served the practitioner to
validate the microscope at hand and, vicariously, the observations
made with it. As Goring characteristically put it, the test objects
would give the user the power to examine the pretensions of all
microscopes whatsoever, with infallible accuracy, and the
unblushing effrontery of the shoptician will in vain attempt to
palm worthless trash on the ignorance of the public.32 In a similar
fashion, if with less effervescence, his co-worker Pritchard
claimed that scales of cabbage butteries, the tips of tiny leaves,
and other delicate objects offered the best means for the
naturalist to determine the exact capabili-ties of his instrument,
in order that he may not be led astray in his investigations, by
placing undue condence in it.33
Pritchard made this statement in his essay on test objects. His
main aim was to identify certain natural objects that could serve
the individual practitioner to evaluate the powers of the
microscope at hand. In passing, Pritchard mentioned another group
of objects: articial stars, enamel dial-plate, wire gauze,
&c.,34 which were also used to check the quality of the
microscopic image.35 Goring used small black enamel plates with
white numbers to check for spherical aberration.36 Other
microscopists used different devices for similar purposes. The
German microscopist Hermann Frey, following the botanist Hugo von
Mohl, utilized a slide covered with India ink, in which small
circles or gures were scratched.37 In contrast to the organic
objects, these mechanically produced objects served a technical
purpose. They were used to investigate the physical causes of
imperfections of the microscopic image.
Pritchard did not go into further detail about this technical
dimension of testing. But he did utilize his brief reference to
hand-crafted or engineered test objects such as articial stars to
draw a distinction between the mere practitioner and the
sci-entist. The average practitioner was, as Pritchard put it, not
disposed to enter into a scientic scrutiny concerning the causes of
their [the microscopes] demerits.38 Only the man of science could
be expected to have an interest in the mechanism of
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 123
the microscope. The practitioner could well be content with
knowing how to use his device and how to check whether it was in
proper working order.39 Pritchard thus exploited the reference to
test objects as rhetorical device to widen the gap between the mere
practitioner of microscopy and the real man of science.
Yet another context for test objects opened up in the
mid-nineteenth century as the microscope became established in
clinical medicine.40 Notably, clinicians recommend certain body
uids and tissues as test objects instead of parts of plants and
insects. The Edinburgh physician and microscopist John Bennett, for
example, stated in his Introduction to clinical medicine of 1853:
if the microscope shows with clearness the epithelia scales, the
structure of the salivary globules, their nuclei, and contained
molecules, you may be satised that the instrument will exhibit all
the facts with which, as medical men, you have to do.41 Bennetts
statement also shows that the clinicians goals for testing were
slightly different from the goals pursued in the context of
microscopical research discussed above. For Goring and Pritchard,
one important aspect of testing was to establish the highest powers
of individual microscopes. But for Bennett, the guiding question
was whether the microscope at hand was suitable in the sense of
good enough for routine purposes, namely the search for
pathological changes of body uids and tissues and signs of
disease.
The increased use of microscopes as research tools as well as
the gradual establish-ment of the microscope in clinical routines
were complemented by the introduction of practical exercises in
microscopy as part of medical education, especially from the 1840s
onward. Test objects served as training tools for beginners and
students in the classroom.42 Frey recommended test objects as
discipline for the beginner since their resolution is by no means
easy, and with them the accurate adjustment of the focus, and the
skilful application of the illumination, may be learned.43 A
footnote in William Carpenters classic microscopy manual The
microscope and its revelations also testies to the discussions
about how best to employ test objects to acquire the necessary
skills. Carpenter noted:
It has been urged that the acquirement of the power of
displaying difcult Diatom-tests, is a valuable gymnastic for the
training of Microscopists; but the experience of the Author, and of
every Biology teacher he knows, is that a much better training for
the Student is to begin with the study of such easy objects as
afford him the experience which is absolutely essential that he
should acquire in the rst instance, and to proceed gradually from
these to the more difcult, gaining new knowledge at every
stage.44
Working with test objects was not only gymnastic for the
neophyte but also a sport for scientic gentlemen and microscope
enthusiasts, and as such it became an end in itself. Goring already
alluded to this when he compared trying microscopes against each
other with horse racing.45 Especially in the second half of the
nineteenth century, when diatoms delicate marine algae became
common test objects, many diatomaniacs engaged in diatom-hunting to
be able to stage even more difcult trials for their microscopes.46
Carpenter commented dryly: It is assuredly neither
-
124 JUTTA SCHICKORE
the only nor yet the chief work of the Microscope (as some
appear to suppose) to resolve the markings on the siliceous valves
of Diatoms.47 Carpenters reviewer was even more explicit. He simply
declared these amateurs were not microscopic observers. The only
thing they proved was that they had a purse in their pockets. But
doing research with an inferior microscope testied to brains in
ones head.48 Once more, test objects served as a means to draw
boundaries between the amateur and the professional. But while in
previous years, the application of test objects was the mark of the
profession, excessive usage was now the mark of the amateur.
This section has shown that in the second third of the
nineteenth century, multi-ple contexts for testing microscopes
opened up. Gorings initial denition of test object already brings
together two roles of test objects: the comparison of different
instruments (which one is showing more and better?) and the quality
check for an individual instrument: the assessment of its
pretensions, defects, and excellencies. Several additional contexts
and aims for testing soon unfolded. In each context, specic test
objects came to be used for specic goals. Particularly delicate
natural objects became reference points in the competitions among
makers and users for technical superiority. In research contexts,
certain nely-lined parts of plants and animals served to evaluate
the good working order as well as the highest powers of the
microscope at hand. In clinical contexts, common uids and tissues,
which were representative for microscopic objects in routine
clinical checks, showed that the microscope at hand was good enough
to perform routine tasks. Such common objects also became training
tools for students. Articial objects specically designed for
testing the optical system served makers and users as indicators of
faults and fur-ther incentive for technological improvement. And as
we have seen, an unintended consequence of the introduction of test
objects was that they became instrumental in the drawing of
boundaries between different groups of microscope users: amateurs,
[mere] practitioners, and [real] men of science.
GOOD TEST OBJECTS FOR GOOD MICROSCOPES
One would expect that using tests gradually became a stable and
routine practice once the practitioners had gured out which test
objects were the best indicators for good microscopes. But while
the purposes for testing multiplied, the properties that test
objects were intended to evaluate became progressively specic and
precarious. Test objects turned into objects of study and quickly
became rather recalcitrant little things. While the overall merit
and usefulness of test objects were never in doubt, the
preoccupation with test objects and testing practices gradually
transformed on the features that were considered essential for good
microscopes and that were thus required of good test objects. New
obstacles and challenges for the practitioners opened up on new
levels, and the practice of testing never fully stabilized.
Initially, a diverse set of organic objects were used for the
purpose of testing and comparing microscopes, ranging from bats
hairs and plant seeds to the feet of ies and the jaws of cheese
mites. Soon, several of these objects were dismissed, while others
became common currency. Some of the reasons for this were
clearly
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 125
pragmatic. Certain objects were set aside because they were
costly; others because they were hard to procure; yet others
because they were so difcult to handle. But which objects continued
to be used also depended on the changing notions of good
microscopes.
What is a good microscope, and what makes a microscopic object a
good test object? Reading Gills report of Amicis visit to London,
one can get a sense of the early applications of test objects in
the context of the social gatherings of microscope enthusiasts.
Gill told his readers how he had
witnessed the performance of his [Amicis] microscopes in
comparison with others, brought for the express purpose, and with
the same test objects; and the result appears to be, that his
reecting microscope is a most capital instrument indeed, under
moderately magnifying powers; but his refracting one, which is
composed of a compound object glass, formed of two achromatic
lenses, each consisting of three lenses; a right angled prism, to
change the direction of the line of vision from a vertical to a
horizontal one; and an astronomical eye-glass, greatly exceeds it
for every purpose, and is indeed a superior instrument.
He reported that the result of the comparison appeared to be in
favour of Profes-sor Amicis refracting microscope, and of Tullys
[sic] achromatic and Cuthberts miniature-copy of the professors
reecting microscopes. Gill pronounced these instruments the most
perfect microscopes hitherto constructed.49
Gills report shows that the assembled gentlemen used test
objects to compare types of microscopes from particular makers, and
that the goal was to establish which type was superior to the
others. The subsequent issue of the journal tells us how Gills own
single microscope made by Varley came under scrutiny. The report
suggests that in the early stages of using test objects, one main
goal of testing was to check whether ones microscope could display
at all the pattern or surprising features of a test object. Gill
reported that he was invited by another gentleman, Mr. Carpenter,
to bring his Varleys single microscope to his house , in order to
prove its powers by the inspection of a few test objects.50 Gill
then described the tests that his microscope had undergone. Some of
these are familiar from Gorings publica-tions, others more
extravagant: at rst Gill had to try the feathers of the Menelaus,
the cabbage-buttery, and others, after which Carpenter presented
Gill with a more curious object, a cheese mite, placed upon a slip
of glass, and covered with a slice of talc; telling him, that he
had endeavoured to discover the anatomy of the mite, but not
mentioning in what respect. But Gills microscope stood the
challenge:
... upon submitting the object to the microscope, the Editor
quickly found, that two sets of teeth and the jaws were most
beautifully displayed on each side of the object. On mentioning
this, Mr. Carpenter said they were what he wished to try the power
of the microscope with, but would not have previously mentioned
them, but let the Editor have found it out himself. The teeth are,
as may be supposed, exceedingly delicate, but are most distinctly
displayed, and form exquisite microscopic objects.51
-
126 JUTTA SCHICKORE
The case of the cheese mite is signicant because it shows how
deeply the practice of comparative trials was rooted in natural
history. The microscope offered surprising, unexpected views, and
this ability to surprise the viewer testied to the instruments high
powers. This kind of test the trial often involved very specic,
highly context-dependent knowledge of natural history.
One of the initial goals of testing was simply to resolve the
pattern or display the outline or a certain surprising feature of
an object, and if one could declare a pattern resolved, the test
was considered successful. This was also what Gill and Pritchard
had in mind when they sent their test objects to France. But soon,
resolving was no longer enough. The quality of the display came
under scrutiny, and the practitioners used tests more
systematically to establish whether a microscope performed better
than another, and to assess the specic features of each
instrument.
As Pritchards essay on test objects demonstrates, by the early
1830s, the evalu-ation criteria had already grown more complex.
Pritchard sorted test objects into groups according to the degree
of difculty with which they could be resolved and according to the
specic optical properties they were to evaluate. Pritchards text
contains a list of test objects accompanied by a plate with
depictions of these objects. The list comprises two kinds of
objects, those for testing the penetration and those for testing
the denition of an instrument. Pritchard explained that
penetration, which depended on the angle of aperture, denoted the
instruments capability of showing ne lines, while denition was
inversely as the quantity of spherical and chromatic aberration,
that is, it indicated the instruments capability of displaying the
outlines of the object.52 Generally speaking, lines on the wings
and scales of insects tested penetrating power, and the outlines of
the hairs of animals and certain mosses ascertained dening power.
Each of Pritchards classes comprised easier and more difcult
objects, up to the most difcult. Pritchard claimed: When an
instrument shows the last class properly, it may be at once
pronounced superlative.53 The plate presented the objects
correspondingly; they were grouped into two sets according to the
optical properties they assessed. Pritchards classication of test
objects implies that the most difcult ones those with the most
delicate structure were the best, as they singled out the most
perfect microscope. Roughly, the term difculty (which was often
used in quotation marks) denoted the degree of delicacy of the
shape, pattern, and texture of the object, whose display required a
microscope with an appropriate degree of perfection. A test object
that possessed maximum difculty would tax the microscope to
ultimate limits.
But in practice, matters were not so simple. Pritchard also
noted that in order to be evaluated effectively, microscopes must
be tried on the same object and had to be applied under similar
illumination. Otherwise it might well happen that a good microscope
may be rejected, and a worse one, by better management, allowed to
carry off the palm of victory.54 Embedded in Pritchards statement
are three more requirements for successful testing. First, the
objects used for testing must be stable55 and uniform. Second, the
conditions of observation must be stable, uniform, and appropriate
to the task. Third, the observer must have the necessary skills to
arrange
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 127
the set up and to perform the test. The additional requirements
in Pritchards conception of successful testing soon
became matters of concern, and as more and more microscopists
engaged with test objects, the real signicance of Pritchards
insights became painfully clear. Detmers, for instance, reported
that none of the European opticians he had visited had been able to
resolve the test objects with their German microscopes and stressed
that part of this failure was likely due to bad management of the
viewing conditions. He noted he would have been well able to
resolve the test objects had he been asked to manipulate the German
instruments.
The multiplication of evaluation criteria and the growing
importance of compara-tive testing created new challenges to the
practitioners because they had to design testing practices that
enabled such comparison between microscopes. As Gills report shows,
in the early days of testing, microscopists carried their
microscopes and test objects with them to the social gatherings so
that several microscopes could be tried with the same object. But
such direct comparison is not always practical. If the goal was
mere resolving of certain features of test objects, it would be
enough to send just that object around. But circulating delicate
objects and across long distances, too! is not very practical
because it takes time, and the objects may be damaged or destroyed
on their journey. And if the goal was comparison, it was at least
required that an observer travelled with the test objects; and even
then, the comparison would be questionable because it hinged on the
observers good memory. Chevalier returned to his English friends
some drawings of the English test objects as they looked when
viewed with his microscope. The drawings served as evidence that
the test objects had been resolved. But once the patterns of these
test objects were known, it was of course debatable whether the
drawings were true to the microscopic images or whether they were
simply made to look good. The fact that Detmers went on his trip to
Europe equipped not only with test objects but also with
photomicrographs suggests that this was a concern amongst
practitioners and that drawings were con-sidered doubtful pieces of
evidence.
As the practice of testing became more common, instances of
types of test objects had to be multiplied in such a way that they
remained uniform. Pritchard attempted to secure the uniformity of
the test objects by stressing the necessity of a careful selection
of those [objects] similar to my drawings.56 With this statement,
Pritchard implicitly acknowledged that even if a microscopist chose
to use the very same part of an insect or plant as he, Pritchard,
did, this would not guarantee the uniformity of the object. No two
natural objects are exactly the same, and they do not even resemble
one another enough for testing purposes. So if one selected ones
test objects so that they resembled Pritchards drawings, one could
at least make the objects somewhat more uniform.
But Pritchards way of circumventing the problem of natural
variation by providing authoritative drawings cannot have been very
satisfactory to the other practitioners. The universal standard of
comparison that Pritchards image represented was con-stituted by a
combination of the skilfulness of Pritchards drawing, the
competence
-
128 JUTTA SCHICKORE
of the engraver, and the quality of the print. Goring and
Pritchards depictions of test objects underwent numerous reprints
that did not leave the images unaltered. Besides, how could one nd
out whether the test object at hand really looked like Pritchards
(after all, the details could only be seen with a microscope), and
why indeed should one adopt Pritchards exemplars as authoritative
models to copy from?
Circulating designated tests and providing depictions as models
for good test objects or successful resolution are different
activities directed at a common goal: to eliminate variations in
test objects. Yet in the longer term, using natural objects was not
considered completely satisfactory. The problem of variation in
natural objects was tackled in a novel fashion when articial test
plates were introduced. In 1846, some fteen years after the
publication of Pritchards essay on test objects, the German
engineer Friedrich Nobert found a new way of obtaining uniformity
across test objects.57 He devised a ruling engine to make nely
scaled glass gratings. This technique could also be used to produce
test plates for microscopes. The plates had bands of lines, each
with specic, increasingly smaller distances between the lines.58
Nobert explicitly stated that mechanical production of test plates
was advantageous because it took care of the problem of
variability.59
The invention of test plates has been celebrated as notable
technological advance-ment for microscopy.60 In hindsight, it
appears that the mechanical production of standard test plates did
indeed accelerate the dynamics of microscope technology.
Microscopists published lists of microscopes by different makers
together with information about the highest band of Noberts test
plates that they had been able to resolve.61 John Mayall, a near
contemporary of Nobert, noted that the nest gratings that Nobert
produced always exceeded the resolving power of available
instruments, thus challenging the microscope makers to improve the
performance of their products.62
However, the introduction of articial test plates did not bring
the debates and activities of securing the uniformity of test
objects to a satisfactory conclusion. Several practitioners found
that Noberts test plates also have the fault of not being
identical.63 This is not surprising given the extremely intricate
manner of their pro-duction.64 Contemporaneous sources suggest that
Nobert removed from Greifswald to Barth because the vibrations from
the urban environment impeded his work. For the same reason, in
Barth, Nobert took to working during the night.65 If the grating of
test plates was so sensitive that it could be affected by everyday
city bustle, it is no wonder that variations of the lines could not
be entirely avoided.
Actually, the problem of natural variation was not the only
reason why articial test plates were welcomed. The other advantage
of the rst mechanical test plates was that the lines were ner than
those on most natural objects, which meant that test plates were
more difcult. I noted earlier that the rst natural test objects had
helped produce optically improved microscopes. The improved
instruments required increasingly difcult objects. Mechanically
produced plates and natural objects continued to compete for the
highest level of difculty. In the late nineteenth century, the
German microscopist Heinrich Frey pointed out that certain
natural
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 129
test objects had been abandoned with the increasing perfection
of microscopes. In particular, all those which were recommended
before 1840, all the various hairs and scales of butteries and
wingless insects, may be regarded as conquered ter-ritory. To
attempt to test a rst-class modern microscope with these expedients
of a former epoch, would be an insult to the optician from whose
establishment the instrument has proceeded.66 Frey illustrated this
with the fate of the Janira scale, Amicis favourite test object.67
In the mid-1840s, the botanist Hugo von Mohl had recommended this
object as a very difcult test. Frey recalled how he as a student
equipped with a Schieck microscope had to vex and trouble himself
to obtain only a passable view of these transverse markings.
Decades later, by the time he wrote the instruction manual, an
instrument that could not show these markings at a magnifying power
of 200 was considered bad.68
Throughout the nineteenth century, keeping pace with
technological advancements and nding more and more difcult test
objects both remained concerns. John May-alls paper on Noberts
ruling machine, which was delivered to the London Society of Arts
in 1885, suggested that a major motivation for adopting articial
test plates had in fact been the scarcity of natural test objects
with extremely ne lines.69 In the 1850s, when diatoms were
discovered as test objects, they at rst outperformed Noberts test
plates. Moreover, Noberts test plates were barely affordable while
diatoms were rather cheap. Diatoms and Noberts test plates remained
valid options throughout the century because of the very similar
degrees of difculty of these objects. Ngeli and Schwendener
included in their 1867 manual of microscopy a table displaying the
widths of Noberts test bands, adding that the table showed that
Noberts test plates were only a little less difcult than the most
delicate organic objects.70 Noberts own comparative table of 1861,
published posthumously in 1882, shows the opposite.71 In 1872,
Heinrich Frey again observed that only the markings on Noberts
later test plates were delicate enough that markings as ne as those
of the Diatomaceae have been made by art.72
Finding sufciently delicate microscopic objects was not the only
problem the microscopists faced. They gradually realized that even
the most fundamental require-ment for test objects could not always
be met: obviously, the principal requirement for a test object is
that its structure be known. If one is not thoroughly familiar with
the ner structure of the test object one is applying, the object
will not be very useful for establishing the quality of a
microscope, because one will never be in a position to judge
whether the microscope has met the goal of displaying the object
correctly or indeed better than another. Yet in several cases, the
true structure of the test objects was very much in doubt. For
instance, in 1858, the science instructor Friedrich Rein-icke
recorded in his microscopy manual the disputes among several
practitioners as to whether the diatom Pleurosigma angulatum showed
lines or whether these lines were separate dots.73 In 1870, the
microscopist Joseph Bancroft Reade lamented that there were as many
descriptions of the diatom Pleurosigma as there were observers.74
The structure of the common test object Lepisma saccharina (the
silversh) was also much contested. In 1873, the American naturalist
G. W. Morehouse pointed out that
-
130 JUTTA SCHICKORE
even though its scales had been for many years subjected to most
careful and critical examination by the most competent observers
and the best microscopes, the true character of its markings still
remains a disputed question. The disagreement arose, he said,
partly from the complex nature of the markings themselves, and
partly from the different conditions under which they have been
seen.75
Articial test objects did not fare better. One should not assume
that because their lines were man-made and engineered, they were
easier to understand. On the contrary, as a note in the 1869
Popular science review indicates, there were compet-ing methods of
counting the lines on Noberts test plates, and the descriptions of
the methods suggest that the task was rather precarious.76 Mayalls
talk on Nobert and his work points out that the capability of
resolving the highest bands hinged on the method of illumination.77
In the 1870s, microscopists still recorded diversity of opinions
about the resolution of the latest test plates.78
Despite all these obstacles, the microscopists never abandoned
the practice of using tests. On the contrary, they took the sorry
state of things as an occasion to investigate closely the various
conditions of viewing test objects and the causes of the
discrepancies in the descriptions.79 They established, among other
things, that the way of preparing and mounting (dry v. wet) had an
inuence on the ease with which the markings on the test objects
were seen.80 They also examined how the perform-ance of the human
eye constituted the practice of testing. It had long been noted
that microscopic vision was different from vision with the unaided
eye and that this might be a cause of error. Similarly, the unusual
viewing situation might impede the study of test objects.81 The
American microscopist Lucian Howe, for example, drew atten-tion to
a common imperfection of the eye, astigmatism. Because of the eyes
in-built imperfection, ne parallel lines could not be fair tests
for microscopes. Referring to the great authority F. C. Donders,
the Dutch physiologist, Howe stressed that astigmatism was a
feature of normal eyes. If two people looked at Noberts test plates
or nely-striped diatoms, one of them might thus see the lines
perfectly well while the other was incapable of seeing them. This
person would of course pronounce the microscope inferior. Howe
claimed to have encountered frequently such a difference of
opinion. In these cases, it was imperative that the object on the
microscope stage should be turned through an arc of 180 degrees. By
revolving the object in such a way that the horizontal lines became
vertical and vice versa, they passed through every position in
which an observer could possibly see them.82
Eventually, the microscope even became a tool to evaluate the
limits of the testing procedures for microscopy. In their manual of
microscopy, the botanists Carl Ngeli and Simon Schwendener noted
that the visibility of the dark lines of test objects depended on
the eyes acuity. Therefore, they claimed, the purported testing of
the microscope is essentially a testing of the eye.83 Ngeli and
Schwendener based their study of test objects on micrometric
measurements of the size of light-sensitive elements of the
retina.
In his study of late Victorian microscopy, Gooday points out
that the illumination was generally considered one of the most
important and most precarious parameters
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 131
for microscopic observation. It is thus not surprising to nd
that in the context of testing, the practitioners also paid
particular attention to illumination the soul of the complex body,
with all its ingenious mechanism, appliances, and powers.84 In his
article on test objects, Reade bemoaned that while the
practitioners had numerous kinds of illumination apparatuses to
choose from, none of these was really satisfac-tory. He then set
out to show that his method could bring out the real structure of
various diatoms.85 The German microscopist Frey too embarked on an
investigation of the effects of illumination. His work even showed
that the difculty of one and the same object, the diatom
Pleurosigma angulatum, varied in different illuminations and
different kinds of objectives: with oblique light, this diatom was
suitable to test medium and greater powers, but with good immersion
lenses it was important to use central illumination. If immersion
objectives were used with oblique illumination, the test became too
easy.86
All these examples illustrate the intricate relations between
the perceived dif-culty of a test object, technological
advancement, and the management of the experimental setting.
Morehouses paper on the silversh Lepisma saccharina gives another
glimpse of this complex of concerns. In Morehouses opinion, the
continu-ing disputes about the true structure of the scales were in
part due to the fact that the object itself had coarser and ner
markings, a fact that had only become apparent with the
technological improvements of microscopes. Initially the coarse
ribs of the scales of the insect had appeared easy to resolve.
However, as Morehouse showed in his paper, improved microscopes and
better management of the illumination had revealed delicate
structures severely taxing the powers of the nest objectives in
existence. Morehouse described a whole series of structures in
increasing order of difculty, ranging from heavy longitudinal
ridges to faint irregular veins.87 But he also pointed out that
some of the markings that had been described by others were due to
optical illusions produced by inappropriate illumination. So it was
no wonder that observers using different instruments with different
illumination had come to contradictory conclusions about the
structure of the test object and its degree of difculty.
Investigations of the effects of light continued well into the
twentieth century, as an essay from the 1909 issue of the American
natural history journal Midland naturalist demonstrates. The essay
begins by conrming the overall importance of testing: Even the
amateur microscopist has come to recognize that the value of a
microscopical objective depends on the ease with which it will
resolve with perfect clearness certain test objects usually diatoms
with delicate markings. But the focus of the essay is on the
problems of displaying the markings of a particular diatom commonly
used as tests (Amphipleura pellucida). The author announced that in
lengthy experiments with various objectives he had accidentally
found that the illumination was critical for the correct display of
the delicate lines of the object. He obtained the best results when
the incidence of the direct sunlight took place as nearly as
possible parallel to the stage, the microscope being inclined for
the purpose, and at right angles to the striae.88
-
132 JUTTA SCHICKORE
The manifold investigations of test objects, of their difculty,
and of the condi-tions of testing had another important
consequence. The very concept of difculty became questionable. Not
only was it hard to nd suitably delicate or difcult microscopic
objects, but difculty as such turned out to be a problematic
notion. Only at rst, the term difculty, or rather degree of
difculty, was used simply as an indicator of the degree of delicacy
of the object, and, by implication, the power of the microscope
that could display it. Difculty soon became a puzzle: what exactly
did it mean that a test object was difcult, what was the power
required to display it, and was the ability to display the most
difcult objects really the most desirable property in a
microscope?
Already in the 1830s, Pritchards essay showed that test objects
could be difcult in different respects. Pritchards ordered list of
test objects demonstrates that by that time, test objects already
had more specic functions than Gorings and Gills delicate specimen
had had. According to Pritchard, test objects assessed particular
optical properties rather than the overall power or degree of
perfection of an instrument: some test objects rated penetrating
power, others dening power.
As I noted above, Pritchard drew attention to the fact that
these properties were independent from one another in such a way
that the instrument might possess a very considerable approximation
to perfection in the one, and fall short in the other, or vice
versa, or might be perfect in both.89 Each microscope manifested
the two optical properties to different degrees. Only gradually did
the microscopists come to appreciate the implications of the
insight that the difculty of test objects was in fact an indicator
of different properties. But this insight gave rise to another
question: Which of these properties was the most desirable?
Pritchard had assumed that the most perfect microscope was the one
that combined the highest degree of denition with the highest
degree of penetration. However, it became clear that extremely high
penetrating power was usually obtained at the expense of dening
power and vice versa. So one had to determine which of the two
properties was the more important, and how much spherical and
chromatic aberration was still accept-able in a microscope.
The situation became even more complicated when it turned out
that the multi-faceted capacity to display difcult objects was not
the only desirable power of a microscope, and indeed that the
capacity to display the most difcult objects might not be the most
desirable property for a working microscope. As early as 1829,
Jacquin cautioned that while the quality of a microscope could only
be determined by test objects, those makers who designed their
instruments exclusively to display these objects in the best
possible way were mistaken. After all, the microscopist would not
only want to test but to use his microscope.90 And the Austrian
microscopist Joseph Johann Pohl opened his essay on test objects:
The test of a microscope with so-called test objects decides only
about the optical value, while other important properties requisite
for the practical use of the instrument are disregarded.91 Other
practitioners also pointed out that test plates measured selected
features of the instru-ment and only in the particular part of the
aperture that was being utilized. Mayall
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 133
implied that it was a mistake to regard the resolution of a test
band with very ne lines as a sufcient test of the quality of an
objective because this fact merely dem-onstrated that one zone of
the objective was free from aberration. If the rest was not, this
objective was in fact of inferior quality.92 Therefore test plates
might not give an altogether fair assessment of microscopes; they
were certainly not the ultimate measure of good microscopes.
Carpenter then distinguished ve desirable attributes of a good
object glass for microscopes: (1) its working-distance, or actual
interval between its front lens and the objects on which it is
focused; (2) its dening power, or power of giving a clear and
distinct image of all well-marked features of an object, especially
of its boundaries; (3) its penetrating power, or focal depth, by
which the observer is enabled to look into the structure of
objects; (4) its resolving power, by which it enables
closely-approximated markings to be distinguished; and (5) the
atness of the eld which it gives.93 Carpenters approach shows that
by the late nineteenth century, the notion of a good microscope had
become quite intricate. Moreover, both the question of what a good
microscope was and the question of how to assess whether particular
instruments were good were wide open. Carpenter claimed that test
objects could assess only two of the properties he considered
crucial: denition (the power of giving a clear and distinct image
of the markings of an object) and resolution (the power of
distinguishing closely approximated markings); and anyway, most
tests were only for resolution, that is, for angular aperture.
Other microscopists took a different approach. The American J. J.
Woodward, for instance, favoured versatile multi-purpose test
objects such as frustules (cell walls of diatoms), which he thought
could test several properties at once. They served as a valuable
unit of comparison between different objectives, the distinctness
with which the striae are shown indicating the denition of the
glass, the manner in which the edges of the frustule are seen while
the mid-rib and striae are in focus showing the degree of
penetration, and the appearance of the ends of the frustule when
the centre is in focus giving a fair idea of the atness of the
eld.94 These examples show that in the late nineteenth century, the
whole procedure of testing had become extraordinarily complex. Not
only was the practitioner required to pit dening power against
penetrating power but there was in fact a whole array of features
that needed to be weighed, and how should one go about it? What
were the most desirable features of a microscope, and what test
objects were best suited to assess them? Opinions were divided.
While the practitioners were only too aware of this complexity, no
overall consensus had emerged about good microscopes, good test
objects, and ideal viewing conditions.
THE CAREER OF TEST OBJECTS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
How can one characterize in general terms the career of test
objects in the nineteenth century? In many ways, it was a success
story. Initially a number of delicate objects served as
rough-and-ready comparative measures for the optical quality of
instru-ments. As the testing contexts multiplied, these objects
were sorted into different kinds for different purposes. Test
objects were, and continued to be, relevant in the
-
134 JUTTA SCHICKORE
more informal exchanges between microscope enthusiasts and
instrument makers as tools to compare microscopes and to evaluate
their highest powers. These interactions inspired technological
advancements, which allowed for the use of more sophisti-cated test
objects; and that, in turn, encouraged further technological
progress. The reference to test objects became part of the
researchers arguments for the validity of their results. In the
latter half of the nineteenth century, the test objects had become
established tools in the clinic and in educational contexts.
However, the career of test objects cannot easily be described
in terms of stabili-zation and establishment of routine procedures.
Here my conclusions diverge from Goodays. Gooday writes that in the
longer term, late Victorian microscopists (and physicists) were
able to enhance these conditions [of their research] by
reengineer-ing their working environments to achieve greater
phenomenological orderliness: physicists by acquiring specially
purpose-built laboratories, and microscopists by installing
auxiliary devices such as the achromatic substage condenser into
the very structure of their instruments.95 My study of the history
of test objects and testing procedures suggests that the test
objects and the viewing conditions were never fully stabilized, and
testing never became a uniformly routine practice.
The article in the Midland naturalist of 1909 that I mentioned
earlier is an indicator of the general attitude toward test objects
at that time. It shows that at the beginning of the twentieth
century, the general usefulness of test objects was beyond doubt.
However, the true structure of these objects, the right viewing
conditions, and the concrete goals for testing were still matters
of concern and investigation. Until well into the twentieth
century, practitioners debated what certain test objects really
looked like. Even then, the activities and investigations of the
testing practices and conditions had not fully stabilized the
testing procedures. And if one measures the practice of testing
with the requirements the practitioners expounded, their practice
constantly fell short of their ideals. For instance, the uniformity
of test objects was never fully guaranteed. It was obvious that
natural objects are never completely uni-form, and it was also
clear that the procedures to engineer articial test plates were
never totally exact and reliable.
The continuing attempts to make test objects and the testing
situation more uni-form, to establish the true structure of the
test objects, and to identify objects of an appropriate level of
difculty even had adverse effects. The more the practitioners
engaged with difcult test objects, the more diverse descriptions of
test objects were offered. The more insights were gained in the
viewing conditions for test objects (and microscopic objects more
generally), the more idiosyncratic the testing procedures became,
as individual practitioners sought to design as well as they could
stable test-ing situations for themselves. There were signicant
tensions in the microscopists deliberations about test objects,
because the practitioners declared that standard, uniform testing
procedures were important while proposing and rening their own
personal preferences and practices.
From early on, practitioners demanded that test objects had to
be universal in order for test results to be comparable. Jacquin,
for instance, lamented that each microscopist
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 135
had favourite objects depending on his specialty: the
physiologist used blood globules, the botanist pollen, and so
forth. But it was desirable that one came in general to an
agreement about certain objects that are not only suitable because
of their structure and durability but also uniform and obtainable
everywhere.96 Goring also insisted that the tests be performed by a
neutral judge, the rst rule of testing being that no mans judgment
is worth a straw, relative to his own instrument, even in a case
where there is no money to be lost or won by it.97 On the other
hand, authors of microscopy books and articles demanded that the
practitioners familiarize themselves with a few test objects so
that they were always in a position to judge the qualities of the
micro-scopes they encountered.98 Indeed, many practitioners seemed
to have their favourite objects, which they used in conditions they
found most favourable.99 In 1861, the Austrian microscopist Pohl
explicitly regretted that no denitive classication of test objects
according to common principles had been agreed upon. His survey
lists the different classes of test objects recommended by Jacquin,
Goring, Chevalier, Mohl, Schacht, Grifth, Robin, Carpenter, Bailey,
and Amici. Pohl then argued for his own classication, which sorted
test objects into three kinds: those testing for penetrating power,
those testing for dening power, and those testing for chromatic and
spherical aberration.100 In a similar vein, Jabez Hogg noted that
there were almost as many methods employed for bringing out the
markings on test-objects, as there are skilled and efcient
microscopists, each one preferring his own, simply because he has
been at great pains in working it out with the utmost nicety.101
Hogg also illustrated his complaint with descriptions of several
different methods of displaying test objects as they had been
proposed by various microscopists.102 His survey highlights the
problems that had to be overcome and the specic problems each test
object posed: not only did each observer apply individual methods
but the methods even differed for each test object. One might
therefore say that if at all, testing procedures were stabilized at
the expense of generality.
If one compares late nineteenth-century approaches to testing
microscopes with the early accounts of test objects and their
usages, several signicant differences emerge. For Gill and
Pritchard, it was clear that the most desirable microscope was the
one that displayed the most difcult test objects to perfection. But
the initial require-ment for good test objects that was suggested
by the comparison with astronomy namely, that the test objects
should have delicate patterns was merely a pre-liminary step in the
identication of suitable test objects. Discussions continued about
what exactly the right requirements were for good test objects in
different contexts, how they could be met, and if they could be met
at all. Ultimately, these discussions changed both the conceptions
of good microscopes and the requirements for good test objects. In
the late nineteenth century, the practitioners stressed that what
was the most desirable property of a microscope depended on the
purposes for which the microscope was used.
My survey also indicates an explicit acknowledgement of the
limitations of tests and testing. Many practitioners doubted that
highest power was generally the most desirable feature of a
microscope and by implication that highest difculty was
-
136 JUTTA SCHICKORE
really the greatest merit in a test object. Carpenter put it
quite bluntly: As in regard to the qualities of Objectives, so in
respect to Illumination, may it be condently asserted that the
solution of the most difcult Biological problems to which the
Microscope has been yet applied, has been attained by arrangements
by no means the most favourable to the discernment of the markings
on Diatom-valves or the lines on Noberts test plate; and that,
conversely, the arrangements specially effective for the resolution
of the most difcult lined test have not, as yet, been shown to have
much value in Biological investigation.103 In other words, it was a
complete mistake to assume that an object which will show certain
Test-objects, must be very superior for everything else to a glass
which will not resolve these the quali-ties which enable it to
resolve some of the more difcult tests, not being by any means
identical with those which make it most useful in all the ordinary
purposes of Scientic investigation.104
Like Pritchard, Carpenter presented test objects for low,
medium, and high powers: among them injected preparations of a
frogs lung and Morpho menelaus (for low powers), certain diatoms
and hairs for medium powers, and test plates and more difcult
diatoms for high powers. But Carpenter singled out an object from
the medium range as particularly useful to evaluate the working
power of the microscope. He recommended the Podura scale, stressing
that a lens that brings out its mark-ings satisfactorily will suit
the requirements of the ordinary working Microscopist, although it
may not resolve difcult Diatoms.105
Many microscopists around 1900 explicitly stated that for most
tasks extremely high magnication was not necessary and indeed
detrimental. These practitioners cautioned that we know, indeed,
with every increase in this direction, how liable we are to
encounter unforeseen errors and exaggerations.106 In everyday
practice, it was therefore unnecessary and even counterproductive
to utilize the most difcult test objects. In most cases, moderate
magnication was sufcient; and test objects simply had to show that
microscopes worked well and showed objects clearly and distinctly
in this middle range.
In addition, it turned out that test objects could be difcult in
different ways, depending on the specic optical property that was
required for them to be displayed. Because certain features of a
microscope could only be improved at the expense of others, there
was always a trade-off of desirable properties, and it was a
contingent question what the most desirable properties of the
microscope were. In any case, it became clear that a microscope
that was superlative on all counts would never be available.
Working microscopes would always have certain limitations. Test
objects and testing were intrinsically limited, too. In the chapter
on test objects and micro-scope testing in his 1877 microscopy
manual Julius Vogel pointed out that because the appearance of
these objects depended on minor details [Nebendinge] such as
oblique rays and revolving microscope stages,107 test objects were
not an absolute measure of the quality of microscopes.108
Only in the context of those research projects that pushed the
boundaries of instrument-aided vision was it imperative to secure
the highest powers of microscopes
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 137
with the most difcult tests. And in these situations lurked the
most formidable problem of microscopy: when microscopists ventured
out into new domains of the smallest things, the highest powers of
microscopes had to be secured with the most difcult objects. But
these test objects were microscopic objects at the limit (and
indeed beyond the limit) of the optical capacities of the very
instrument whose performance they tested. Here, the microscopists
encountered a second kind of trade-off, a trade-off between
epistemic gain and risk. The trade-off at the limits of
microscope-aided vision could not be circumvented because those
test objects that had become familiar and routine objects were no
longer suitable to explore the microscopes ultimate powers.
Nineteenth-century microscopists researching at the limits of
instrument-aided vision assessed their research tools with
standards that were not fully known to them. Not until new types of
microscopes became available whose powers considerably exceeded the
light microscope (notably the electron microscope) could the
uncertainty about the most difcult test objects for light
microscopes be removed and their application vindicated. But
precisely because new technologies had become available this
vindication was obsolete. In 1947, for instance, the author of an
article on diatoms motivated his investigation with the remark that
the diatom Amphipleura pellucida had frustrated the efforts of some
of the best microscopists for the last seventy-ve years.109 He had
thus set out to clarify the structure of that diatom with the help
of the electron microscope. So in a sense, the best validation of
light microscopes could be obtained only when it was no longer
needed. But as more recent articles on test objects demonstrate,
the very trade-off of epistemic gain and risk repeated itself for
the electron microscope.110
CONCLUSION: LONG-TERM HISTORY OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES OF
MICROSCOPES
It remains to reect on the role test objects played in the
long-term history of evalua-tions of microscopes. Needless to say,
within the connes of this article, I cannot trace in detail the
history of evaluation procedures and requirements for good
microscopes. In what follows, I merely highlight some signicant
features of evaluation criteria and practices in the early modern
period and the late eighteenth century and contrast these with the
principles and practice of using test objects in the nineteenth
century.
Debates about the merits of the microscope are as old as the
microscope. But the nature of these concerns changed signicantly.
Robert Hookes Micrographia of 1665, for example, introduces
microscopes and telescopes as powerful extensions of our senses.
Hooke argued that optical instruments could serve as tools to
remove the imperfections of man and correct the falsehoods of
scholastic philosophers who relied solely on the strength of
reason.
Hookes reections appear in the preface of his book, not in
connection with the concrete ndings described in the main text.
Most of the reections concern general metaphysical and
epistemological issues. Hookes comments about the values and
virtues of instruments can be read and have been read as attempts
at present-ing a compelling image of the New Philosophy that was
then promulgated by the
-
138 JUTTA SCHICKORE
Royal Society and as reections of Hookes devotion to
Christianity.111 They tell us of Hookes hope that the articial
extension of the senses might restore mans uncor-rupted view of
nature. Hooke also offered comparative assessments of microscopes.
But he compared kinds of microscopes rather than individual
instruments. He compared the single with the compound microscope
and recorded his trials with other kinds of microscopes tted with
one piece of Gla, both whose surfaces were plains or with
plano-concave lenses, and with instruments made of Waters, Gums,
Resins, Salts, Arsenick, Oyls, and with divers other mixtures of
watery and oyly Liquors, all of which he found to be inferior to
his compound microscope. The text does not tell us anything about
how he had compared the microscopes and what the principles of
comparison had been. Hooke merely announced that he had found none
generally more useful than his compound microscope. Hooke conceded
that his microscope showed objects dark and indistinct. This
inconvenience was, he said, inseparable from Spherical Glasses. He
recommended that strong light be used to improve the performance of
the instrument. The text indicates that he believed in the
possibility of improving optical instruments to perfection.
Referring to Descartes, Hooke noted that much greater perfection of
Opticks could be expected from elliptical glasses.112
The practice of comparing microscopes to one another in order to
nd the best had become common in the eighteenth century. Several
writers on microscopy reported the results of these comparisons.
For instance, the naturalist D. Pelissons 1775 article in the
journal of the Berliner Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde
[Berlin Society of Scientic Friends] compared an English, a Dutch,
and three German microscopes with respect to focal length and
magnication.113 Notably, Pelisson had not made all the assessments
himself. He regretted that he had not had occasion to try the
English instrument, so he related the information he had received
from a friend who owned one. The article includes a table with data
obtained from different microscopes (the composition of the lenses,
their distance from one another, and the focal length). However,
the table is not connected to the assessment of the performance of
the microscopes. The comparative assessments in the text are
qualitative. It is also strik-ing that more than one-half of the
article describes observations of infusorians, and these reports
are completely disconnected from the comparative assessment in the
earlier part. Pelisson no longer dwelt on the merit of the
microscope as prosthetic device. But like Hooke, he compared types
of instruments. Again, it is not quite clear how the comparison was
made and it was, in part, based on hearsay. As in the Micrographia,
there is no tight connection between the assessment of the
instruments and the observations reported in the remaining part of
the text.
In his study of eighteenth-century testing procedures, Marc
Ratcliff identies different contexts of testing, in particular,
advertising and so-called admission. For the purpose of advertising
that is, promoting his microscopes, a maker invited other
practitioners to compare their microscopes to his. Ratcliffs study
thus shows that the social contexts and aims of trying microscopes
against one another were very similar in the late eighteenth and
nineteenth century. In the eighteenth century, testing was an
integral part of the interactions between makers and users
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 139
and a motor of technical advancement. Ratcliff also shows that
national rivalry was a driving force of instrument testing.
Investigators who obtained a new microscope routinely carried
out admission tests; that is, they compared its performance with
the other microscopes in their posses-sion.114 These comparisons
were carried out privately and with objects that happened to be at
hand and of interest to the researcher. Ratcliff argues that one
purpose of this test was to prepare the ground for an epistemic
triangulation procedure: practitioners often presented different
kinds of instruments, which were used on the same object in order
to piece together the true image of that object.115
As Gills report of Amicis visit to London demonstrates, the
early applications of test objects were a continuation of late
eighteenth-century evaluation principles and practices. However, in
the course of the nineteenth century, the introduction of test
objects changed the principles and practice of testing in at least
three ways. First, test objects helped shift the attention from
concerns about the merits of the microscope as such and the
advantages and disadvantages of types of microscopes or microscopes
from certain makers to concerns about the capability of the
concrete instrument at hand. The name of the maker or the type of
microscope no longer guaranteed its value. The individual users
were required to evaluate the performance of the tools they were
applying, and the test objects provided the means to do this.
Secondly, the practice of testing with designated test objects
as well as the con-tinued attempts to understand and improve the
testing situation had an impact on the idea of a good microscope
and good test objects. In the course of the nineteenth century, the
microscope turned from an instrument with a certain degree of
perfec-tion to a complex device with specic pretensions, defects,
and excellencies. The overall quality of a microscope was always
the result of a trade-off of different optical properties. The
evaluation of microscopes involved intricate assessments and a
variety of testing tools, which also possessed a range of
properties, and which had to be marshalled as required by the
purposes the microscopes should serve.
Thirdly, microscopists ultimately had to content themselves with
imperfect instruments and evaluative procedures that were not
completely satisfactory. My overall conclusion is thus different
from Goodays assessment of late Victorian microscopy. While he
emphasizes the gradual stabilization of the working condi-tions, I
wish to highlight that the practitioners encountered limits of
stabilization as they conducted their research at the boundaries of
instrument-aided vision with instruments and testing procedures
that were not fully understood. Test objects prompted the notion
that microscopes were intrinsically limited and would forever
remain imperfect.116 Moreover, microscopic investigations would
always include a trade-off between epistemic gain and risk. This
situation changed in the twen-tieth century, when new kinds of
microscopes became available that allowed for multiple
determinations of observations whereby results obtained with
different types of microscopes could be comparatively assessed. But
at the limits of these technologies, researchers again faced the
very same trade-off.
-
140 JUTTA SCHICKORE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Portions of this material were presented at the Berkeley-UCSF
Colloquium, UC Ber-keley; the Department of History and Sociology,
University of Pennsylvania; and in the history of science reading
group at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. I am grateful
to the members of the audiences as well as to Domenico Bertoloni
Meli, Elihu Gerson, Heinrich von Staden, and two anonymous referees
for History of sci-ence for their helpful comments on drafts of
this article. I completed this essay while I was a member of the
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. Generous funding from the
Mellon Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. This article draws on material from my book The microscope
and the eye: A history of reections, 17401870 (Chicago, 2007),
chap. 5. In the present essay, I develop those aspects of the story
that go beyond the books scope as well as the general implications
of the case.
2. See G. Gooday, Nature in the laboratory: Domestication and
discipline with the microscope in Victorian life science, The
British journal for the history of science, xxiv (1991), 30741, and
Instrumentation and interpretation: Managing and representing the
working environment of Victorian experimental science, in B.
Lightman (ed.), Victorian science in context (Chicago 1997),
40937.
3. Gooday, Instrumentation (ref. 2), 423.
4. My discussion ranges across different countries, and for the
most part, I do not take national differences into account. This
would be a topic for further, more in-depth studies of the specic
activities surrounding test objects. My aim in this paper is to
capture the overall dynamics of the practice of using test
objects.
5. W. Herschel, On the power of penetrating into space by
telescopes; with a comparative determination of the extent of that
power in natural vision, and in telescopes of various sizes and
constructions; illustrated by select observations, Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of London, xc (1800), 4985. The
Oxford English dictionary identies Herschels paper as the original
source of the term. Astronomy remained the reference point for
writers on test objects, see F. A. Nobert, Ueber die Prfung und
Vollkommenheit unserer jetzigen Mikroskope, Annalen der Physik und
Chemie, lxvii (1846), 17385, p. 174; H. von Mohl, Mikrographie,
oder Anleitung zur Kenntniss und zum Gebrauche des Mikroskops
(Tbingen, 1846), 180.
6. C. R. Goring, On achromatic microscopes with a description of
certain objects for trying their denition, The quarterly journal of
science, literature, and art, xxiii, n.s. i (1827), 41034, p.
418.
7. Goring, On achromatic microscopes (ref. 6), 41819.
8. A. Pritchard, Test objects, London and Edinburgh
philosophical magazine and journal of science, ii (1833), 33544, p.
335. This is the slightly abridged version of the chapter on test
objects in Pritchards The microscopic cabinet of select animated
objects; with a description of the jewel and doublet microscope,
test objects, &c (facsimile edn, Lincolnwood, 1987).
9. P. Harting, Das Mikroskop. Theorie, Gebrauch, Geschichte und
gegenwrtiger Zustand desselben. Theorie und allgemeine Beschreibung
des Mikroskopes, i, 2nd edn (Braunschweig, 1866), 275n. See also H.
A. Smith, Memoir of Charles A. Spencer, Proceedings of the American
Society of Microscopists, vi (1882), 4974, p. 66.
10. W. B. Carpenter, The microscope and its revelations, 6th edn
(New York, 1883), 161.
-
TEST OBJECTS FOR MICROSCOPES 141
11. C. Ngeli and S. Schwendener, Mikroskop: Theorie und
Anwendung desselben, i (Leipzig 1867), 79, 83.
12. Ngeli and Schwendener, Mikroskop (ref. 11), i, 120.
13. C. M. Vorce, Penetration in objectives: Is it a defect or an
advantage?, Proceedings of the American Society of Microscopists,
ii (1880), 7075.
14. See, in particular, Jacob Coxs account of the aperture
controversy between the American maker Robert Tolles and Francis
Wenham on the other side of the Atlantic: J. D. Cox, Annual address
of the president: Robert H. Tolles and the angular aperture
question, Proceedings of the American Society of Microscopists, vi
(1884), 539.
15. T. Gill, On the microscope, Gills technological repository;
or, discoveries and improvements in the useful arts, ii (1828),
9599, 13849, 193201, 25764, 32130, p. 96.
16. J. v. Jacquin,Bemerkungen ber Mikroskope und ihren Gebrauch
fr Naturforscher, Zeitschrift fr Physik und Mathematik, v (1829),
12960, p. 137.
17. T. Gill, On the microscope, Gills technological repository;
or, discoveries and improvements in the useful arts, iii (1829),
114, 7582, 12949, 193206, 25763, 32127, p. 138; Pritchard,
Microscopic cabinet (ref. 8), 151.
18. See, for instance, the catalogues issued around 1830 by the
Viennese maker Ploessl (G. S. Ploessl, Verzeichniss der gangbarsten
optischen Apparate, welche von G. S. Plssl, privilegirtem Optiker
in Wien, neue Wieden, Salvatorgasse Nro 321, fr beigesetze Preise
verfertiget werden, Zeitschrift fr Physik und Mathematik, iv
(1828), 1218; Neues Verzeichniss der gangbarsten optischen
Apparate, welche von G. S. Plssl, Optiker und Mechaniker in Wien,
neue Wieden, Salvatorgasse Nro 321, fr beigesetze Preise in
Conventions-Mnze oder Augsb. Courant verfertiget werden,
Zeitschrift fr Physik und Mathematik, vii (1830), 11928), and, in
1840, by the American maker Spencer (cf. Smith, Memoir (ref. 9),
54). See also J. Vogel, Anleitung zum Gebrauch des Mikroskopes zur
zoochemischen Analyse und zur mikroskopisch-chemischen Untersuchung
berhaupt (Leipzig 1841), 11920.
19. T. Gill, On Professor Amicis and other microscopes, Gills
technological repository; or, discoveries and improvements in the
useful arts, i (1827), 1619, p. 16.
20. Gill, Amicis microscopes (ref. 19), 18.
21. Pritchard, Test objects (ref. 8), 335.
22. See, e.g., Anon., Review: the microscope and its
revelations, London quarterly review, lxvii (1857), 289315, pp.
2901; see also G. W. Royston-Pigott, On a searcher for aplanatic
images applied to microscopes, and its effects in increasing power
and improving denition, Philosophical transactions of the Royal
Society of London, clx (1870), 591603, p. 591; Smith, Memoir (ref.
9), 63; Carpenter, Microscope (ref. 10), 170; W. H. Walmsley, Some
new points in photo-micrography and photo-micrographic cameras,
Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, xvii (1896),
3409, p. 340.
23. J. S. Bowerbank, Reminiscences of the early times of the
achromatic microscope, Monthly microscopical journal, iii (1870),
2815, p. 281.
24. For the competition between English and Continental
craftsmen, see M. W. Jackson, Spectrum of belief: Joseph von
Fraunhofer and the craft of precision optics (Cambridge, 2000).
25. Gill, On the microscope (ref. 17), 138.
26. Pritchard, Microscopic cabinet (ref. 8), 151.
27. In his 1882 memoir of the instrument maker Charles Spencer,
Smith quoted extensively from letters written in the 1840s (both
personal correspondence and letters to journal editors). One
microscopist found Spencers lenses far superior to those of
Chevalier, stating that with them he had been able, without
difculty, to see the cross-lines on the Navicula hippocampus (the
most difcult test object now known to me, and which was sent to me
from England as the test
-
142 JUTTA SCHICKORE
object par excellence) (Smith, Memoir (ref. 9), 57).
28. Smith, Memoir (ref. 9), 62.
29. The bulk of Friedrich Reinickes booklet Contributions to
recent microscopy, for instance, is devoted to a comparison of
English and German microscopes, carried out with test objects (F.
Reinicke, Beitrge zur neuern Mikroskopie. I. Die Leistungen der
neueren Mikroskope und die Prfung derselben. II. Die Leistungen der
englischen Mikroskope, gegenber den deutschen. III. Das Einsammeln
und Prpariren der Bacillarien. Mit 9 Abbildungen von Pleurosigma
Angulatum als Probeoobject (Dresden 1858), chap. 2).
30. H. J. Detmers, American and European microscopes,
Proceedings of the American Society of Microscopists, x (1888),
14954, p. 150.
31. Detmers, American and European microscopes (ref. 30),
152.
32. Goring, On achromatic microscopes (ref. 6), 4223.
33. Pritchard, Microscopic cabinet (ref. 8), 137.
34. Pritchard, Microscopic cabinet (ref. 8), 141.
35. Articial stars are little globules of mercury. See Harting,
Mikroskop (ref. 9), 281, for a description of how to make them.
36. Harting, Mikroskop (ref. 9), 283.
37. H. Frey, The microscope and microscopical technology (New
York 1872), 56.
38. Pritchard, Microscopic cabinet (ref. 8), 141.
39. For example, in their manual of microscopy, the botanists
Carl Ngeli and Simon Schwendener pointed out that test objects were
perfect practical tools to evaluate the performance of a microscope
if one wishes to avoid testing all the peculiarities and errors of
construction on which it [the quality] depends (Ngeli and
Schwendener, Mikroskop (ref. 11), 119).
40. On the establishment of medical microscopy, see L. S.
Jacyna, John Hughes Bennett and the origins of medical microscopy
in Edinburgh: Lilliputian wonders, Proceedings of the Royal College
of Physicians of Edinburgh, xxvii (1997), 1221; and A host of
experienced microscopists: The establishment of histology in
nineteenth-century Edinburgh, Bulletin of the history of medicine,
lvii (2001), 22553.
41. J. H. Bennett, An introduction to clinical medicine: Six
lectures on the method of examining patients; percussion;
auscultation; the use of the microscope; and the diagnosis of skin
diseases, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 1853), 66. Bennett referred here to
histological molecules, particles that are smaller than cells but
not as small as the molecules of the chemists (on Bennetts
histological molecules, see J. Strick, Sparks of life: Darwinism
and the Victorian debates over spontaneous generation (Cambridge,
2000), 4247).
42. J. E. Purkinje, Mikroskop, in R. Wagner (