Welcome	About	Introduction	Chapter One beginning of time – 999 AD
Chapter Two 1000 AD – 1399	Chapter Three 1400 – 1599	Chapter Four 1600 – 1649	Chapter Five 1650 – 1699
Chapter Six 1700 – 1749	Chapter Seven 1750 – 1799	Chapter Eight 1800 – 1819	Chapter Nine 1820 – 1829
Chapter Ten 1830 – 1839	Chapter Eleven 1840 – 1849	Chapter Twelve 1850 – 1859	Chapter Thirteen 1860 – 1869
Chapter Fourteen 1870 – 1879	Chapter Fifteen 1880 – 1884	Chapter Sixteen 1885 – 1889	Chapter Seventeen 1890 – 1894
Chapter Eighteen 1895 – 1899	Chapter Nineteen 1900 + post cinema	Chapter Twenty 1911 +	Copyright
HOTDOC Internet Archive Channel	HOTDOC X Channel	HOTDOC You Tube Channel

_{Period: 1650 to 1699}

In chapter four I finished with Hevelius describing a Periscope that he called a Polemoscope, describing it in his work Selenographia, Sive Lunae Descriptio. It had lenses or mirrors but wasn’t a true camera.

Hevelius proposed military applications for his creation.

Now, we begin to see the lantern evolve into cinema.

As a young boy, Robert Hooke studied under the painter Peter Lely. Paint fumes caused Hooke distress enough that he had to leave. Twenty-five years later he showed Lely his portable Camera Obscura which enabled a painter or any artist, in “helping the sight.”

This cone-shaped Camera Obscura by Hooke was presented along with a paper, to the Royal Society in 1694. But it was not his first. Hooke had also presented a cone-shaped apparatus and other Camera Obscuras in 1668 and and again in 1680.

He promoted his new cone camera and its uses within the world of travel and those that were on the Grand Tour. The instrument required the inserting of the head and forearms into the cone itself. Hooke described it as “a small picture box much like that which I long since shewed the Society, for Drawing the Picture of a Man , or the like; of the Bigness of the original or of any proportionable Bigness [sic] that should be desired.”

More on Robert Hooke as the chapter unfolds.

THE MAGIC LANTERN EVOLVES INTO CINEMA
Something To Consider.
In 2024 Cinema has been with us approximately 136 years depending on when you believe motion pictures began. In comparison, the Magic Lantern was our number one entertainment spectacle covering three centuries.

It wasn’t a moving-picture device but it foreshadows pre cinema in its concern with the illusion of space and optical realism. Wren was one of England’s most influential architects, mathematicians, and scientists, best known for his role in rebuilding London after the Great Fire of 1666.

Born in East Knoyle, Wiltshire, Wren was a polymath whose work shaped the architectural landscape of England during the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

---

It worked similarly to Leonardo’s glass perspective grids, Alberti’s ‘veil’ or reticolo, and Wollaston’s Camera Lucida or perspective tracing devices.

---

Wren’s Scenographical Instrument ties into the long tradition of visual illusion machines because it links to the theatrical scenography of Inigo Jones and the Italian stage engineers, as well as prefiguring 18^th century perspectival drawing machines.

It reflects a mindset of treating space and vision as mechanically reproducible because it anticipates later devices like tableau theatres, or optical viewers.

---

---

---

Henry Oldenburg, who preserved Wren’s device in his Cabinet of Curiosities, showed it to Cosimo III de’ Medici on his 1663 London visit.

Right, the architect Sir Christopher Wren by Godfrey Kneller in 1711. On the left is the Baldassarre Franceschini portrait of Cosimo III de’ Medici, 1676.

---

---

The diagram explains why the duplicate sun and moon orbiting the central mountain Merle (according to Jaina cosmographers), are never observed simultaneously. Like the Stroboscope and Phenakistoscope it has a central core moving opposite to the outer ring.

Known as Harlequinades or the lesser used Turn-Up Books, they were composed of single printed sheets folded perpendicularly into four. Hinged at the top and bottom of each fold, the picture was cut through horizontally to make two flaps that could be opened up or down.

Harlequinades are oh-so close to being considered sequential pictures.

In America, Harlequinades became known as Metamorphosis Books. First published in the United States c.1785 and based on anonymous British religious works like, The Beginning, Progress, and End of Man, printed in London by B. Aslop in 1650.

The Beginning, Progress, and End of Man, seen below were also published in London in 1650, by B. Alsop for T. Dunster. This book is held in the British Library. Closed and open images are shown.

Our example directly below is, “Metamorphosis; or, a transformation of pictures, with poetical explanations, for the amusement of young persons” printed by Joseph Rakestraw in 1809 and 1875. Authored and designed by Benjamin Sands and published by William Hazen and Company in Pottersville, New Jersey.

Harlequinades allowed children or adults to entertain themselves by following the story or creating endless versions through editing to make them appear in different orders as they are turned up or down.

This one below contains eight woodcuts by James Poupard. The prints are arranged into sections with four of the plates cut through the centre so that the top and bottom can be raised. The lion turns into a griffin, the girl into a mermaid, and so on.

The first American Metamorphosis Books appeared c.1775. Images Penn State Libraries, Special Collections/Penn State University, and Princeton University Graphic Arts Collection, The Trustees, via pook and pook.

1650
THE ARTISAN OF LIGHT: CORNELIUS DREBBEL’S CONTESTED LEGACY WITH THE CAMERA OBSCURA AND THE LANTERNA MAGICA
A Brief History of The Artisan of Light—Cornelius Drebbel’s Challenged Legacy in Early Modern Optics
Cornelius Jacobszoon Drebbel (1572–1633) is widely recognized in historical accounts for his contributions to optics, including the construction of optical instruments such as the Camera Obscura and the Laterna Magica. While he is not the sole inventor of either device, a closer examination of the available evidence reveals a more profound and influential relationship.

For the Camera Obscura, the evidence, particularly an eyewitness account by the Dutch diplomat Constantijn Huygens, suggests that Drebbel’s role was that of a master artisan who refined the device to an unprecedented level of quality.

His version of the dark chamber was so visually stunning that it threatened to make traditional painting obsolete. For the Magic Lantern, his influence was likely that of a catalytic precursor. Drebbel’s celebrated magical and theatrical performances, which utilized unidentified optical techniques, may have directly inspired the recognized inventor, Christiaan Huygens.

This dual role as a master craftsman and a proto cinematic showman, positions Drebbel not as the primary creator but as a central figure in the transition of optical devices from scientific instruments to tools of both fine art and public entertainment. This account delves into the historical context and the specific evidence to clarify his complex and contested legacy.

INTRODUCTION: CORNELIUS DREBBEL AND THE INTELLECTUAL FERMENT OF THE EARLY 17TH CENTURY
The Quintessential Polymath: An Innovator in an Age of Discovery
Cornelius Drebbel, born in Alkmaar in 1572, was a Dutch engineer and inventor who embodied the spirit of the early Scientific Revolution. His life’s work demonstrated a remarkable breadth of intellectual and practical pursuits.

While celebrated for building the first operational submarine in 1620, his genius extended far beyond naval engineering, encompassing chemistry, measurement and control systems, pneumatics, and hydraulics. He designed a solar energy system for London, built an egg incubator with a mercury thermostat, and developed what is considered one of the first recorded feedback-controlled devices.

---

Drebbel’s career trajectory underscores his status as a central figure in the European intellectual landscape

---

After an early life as an engraver, painter, and cartographer in Holland, he moved to London around 1604, likely at the invitation of King James I. He was a fixture at the English court, astonishing his royal patrons with a variety of inventions and optical instruments.

His fame circulated widely, leading to an invitation to the court of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague, where he continued to demonstrate his skills in alchemy and the occult sciences. Drebbel’s background as a pragmatic, empirical problem-solver, rather than a purely theoretical scientist, is fundamental to understanding his relationship with the optical instruments he is credited with constructing.

His work was rooted in building physical devices to solve problems or create spectacle, a focus that is distinct from the more abstract theoretical work of his contemporaries. His development of an “automatic precision lens-grinding machine” highlights a hands-on, engineering-based approach to optics, suggesting that his contributions were likely practical and geared toward enhancing the performance of the instruments themselves.

The Challenge of Attribution in Early Modern Science
The history of 17th century science is fraught with contested claims of invention. The era was characterized by a porous network of artisans, scholars, and patrons who shared ideas, designs, and even physical instruments.

As a result, singular attribution is often difficult, if not impossible, to assign with certainty. The development of optical devices, in particular, was an incremental process, with each innovator building upon the work of others.

Drebbel’s contributions must be viewed within this context of shared knowledge and collaborative improvement. The nature of Drebbel’s work as a hands-on craftsman is key to this understanding. And unlike a scientific theorist who might publish a paper describing a phenomenon, Drebbel was an artisan who built, refined, and demonstrated physical objects.

His success was measured by the spectacular results he could produce, not by the rigor of his theoretical explanations. This pragmatic approach led him to focus on the mechanics and visual performance of his instruments, making his role as a popularizer and refiner of technology just as important, if not more so, than a claim to being a device’s sole originator.

His background as a spectacle-maker and engraver provided him with a unique blend of technical skill and artistic sensibility, allowing him to bridge the gap between scientific curiosity and practical application.

THE CAMERA OBSCURA—DREBBEL’S ROLE AS A REFINER AND POPULARIZER
From Pinhole Image to Portable Device: A Pre Drebbel History
The Camera Obscura, Latin for “dark chamber,” originated as a purely natural phenomenon of light passing through a small hole into a darkened space to project an inverted image of the external scene.

This principle was known to those who lived in our very beginning, and was used early on for a documented scientific purpose by Gemma Frisius in 1544 to study a solar eclipse. While a pinhole produces a perfectly focused image at any distance, the resulting projection is extremely dim.

The path to a more practical device began with key optical improvements made by Drebbel’s predecessors. In 1551, the Italian mathematician Girolamo Cardano documented the use of a “glass disk,” likely a convex lens, in the aperture to produce a brighter image.

A few years later, in 1568, Daniele Barbaro proposed using a biconvex lens and a diaphragm to narrow its diametre, a technique that improved both the brightness and sharpness of the projected image. These innovations transformed the Camera Obscura from a simple observational tool into a potential aid for artists.

By 1620, Johannes Kepler had even invented a portable tent-like camera obscura, further advancing its practicality.

The Definitive Evidence: Constantijn Huygens’s Eyewitness Account
The most compelling evidence of Drebbel’s contribution to the Camera Obscura comes from the writings of his contemporary, the Dutch diplomat Constantijn Huygens.

During a diplomatic posting to London in 1621-1622, Huygens met Drebbel and was so impressed by an optical instrument that he acquired one for himself. The instrument in question was a Camera Obscura that “projected images of such beauty, it promised to make ‘all painting dead in consequence.”

This powerful statement is far more than a technical description; it is a profound cultural and economic judgment. It reveals that the device Drebbel refined was not a simple scientific curiosity but a tool of such quality and power that it threatened to revolutionize a major art form.

The luminous, high-fidelity image described by Huygens was a radical departure from the dim, crude projections of earlier Camera Obscuras. Given Drebbel’s reputation as a master craftsman and his credited development of an automatic precision lens-grinding machine, it is highly plausible that his specific contribution was the perfection of the optical components.

By creating lenses of unprecedented quality, he would have been able to produce a brighter and sharper image than previously possible, thereby realizing the device’s full potential for artistic realism. This shift from a niche observational tool to a powerful aid for drawing and painting positions Drebbel as a central figure in a paradigm shift—a critical step toward the development of photography and cinema.

Drebbel did not invent the principle, but he made the device truly functional and commercially viable for a new purpose.

---

Cornelius Drebbel is widely recognized in historical accounts for his contributions to optics, including the construction of optical instruments such as the Camera Obscura and the Laterna Magica

---

The Question of Innovation: What Exactly Did Drebbel Contribute?
My sources credit Drebbel with “constructing” the Camera Obscura and list it among his optical innovations. However, they do not provide specific technical details on how he improved it.

Nowhere have I found this very important detail. The essence of his contribution, therefore, must be inferred from the context of his work and the impact he had on his contemporaries. His role was one of an incremental innovator and master craftsman who synthesized the best optical and mechanical principles of the time.

While others introduced the lens and the diaphragm, Drebbel’s unique skill and artistry enabled him to produce a superior product that could create breathtaking projections, demonstrating the artistic and commercial potential of the device to a new audience of artists and patrons.

THE LANTERNA MAGICA—DREBBEL’S SHADOWY INFLUENCE
The Standard Narrative: Christiaan Huygens as the Inventor
The conventional historical consensus attributes the invention of the Magic Lantern to the Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, son of Constantijn.

He is credited with creating the device around 1650, as found in much research, using a concave mirror, a light source (such as a candle or oil lamp), a painted glass slide, and a lens system to project an enlarged image onto a screen.

His invention formalized the principle of optical projection and established the Magic Lantern as a popular form of entertainment for centuries to come. The Magic Lantern became a versatile medium, used for everything from storytelling and educational lectures to frightening phantasmagoria shows.

The Familial Connection: Drebbel and the Elder Huygens
While Christiaan Huygens is the recognized inventor, there is a compelling, though circumstantial, link to Cornelius Drebbel. It is a documented fact that Christiaan’s father, Constantijn Huygens, was personally acquainted with Drebbel.

A key historical account states that Drebbel used “some unidentified optical techniques to transform himself and to summon wonderful appearances in magical performances.”

These descriptions, while vague, strongly suggests the use of some form of optical projection, possibly even a proto Magic Lantern.

These performances were part of Drebbel’s repertoire as a court inventor and “spectacle-maker,” and they would have occurred several decades before Christiaan Huygens created his definitive lantern.

The Precursor vs. The Inventor: Drebbel’s Possible Role
The link between Drebbel and the Huygens family is more than a historical footnote; it represents a classic case of intellectual transmission. Drebbel’s “magical performances” created a powerful demonstration of a new effect: the projection of images.

As a prominent diplomat and intellectual, Constantijn Huygens would have had every reason to discuss such a fascinating new technology with his brilliant son, Christiaan, who was later described as having an “exacting scientific procedure.”

The younger Huygens would have taken this existing conceptual possibility and, with his superior scientific and mathematical understanding of optics, reverse-engineered the effect to create the first truly functional and repeatable Magic Lantern.

In this scenario, Drebbel’s role was not to invent the finalized device, but to act as a crucial catalyst. He demonstrated the compelling potential of projected images in a public, theatrical context. His work was not an invention in the formal sense of a finalized, patented product but rather an inspirational act that paved the way for the recognized inventor.

This makes Drebbel a crucial, if uncredited, figure in the Magic Lantern ‘s lineage and highlights his enduring influence on the history of projected images.

DREBBEL IN CONTEXT—THE BROADER WORLD OF 17TH CENTURY OPTICS
The Microscope Debate: A Parallel Case Study in Attribution
The conflicting claims over the invention of the compound microscope serve as an ideal parallel for understanding the attribution challenges surrounding Drebbel’s work in optics.

Several individuals are credited with the invention, including the Dutch spectacle maker Zacharias Janssen around 1600, Galileo Galilei in the 1610s, Drebbel himself and others. This ambiguity is a direct result of the lack of formal scientific record-keeping and the rapid, cross-cultural exchange of ideas at the time.

A critical piece of evidence in this debate is the testimony of Dutch ambassador Willem Boreel. He stated that he saw a compound microscope at Drebbel’s London house in 1619, which he believed was made by Zacharias Janssen.

This account illustrates how these figures were not isolated geniuses but were part of a dynamic network where ideas and instruments were exchanged. Drebbel’s fame and position as a court inventor made him a central hub in this network. He had the means and reputation to acquire the most advanced technologies of his day.

The fact that Galileo, the celebrated Italian scientist, saw Drebbel’s design in 1624 and created an improved version for the Accademia dei Lincei further underscores Drebbel’s importance in the dissemination of optical technology. His role, therefore, was not merely that of an inventor but also of a critical link in the chain of technological progress and a key figure in the transfer of knowledge across Europe.

The Synergy of Disciplines: Drebbel’s Blurring of Technology, Art, and Magic
Drebbel’s relationship with optical devices was deeply intertwined with his other pursuits. His background as an engraver and painter provided him with an understanding of perspective and visual aesthetics, skills that were directly applicable to the artistic uses of the Camera Obscura.

Furthermore, his work on spectacular fountains and theatrical props for court masques provides the crucial motivational context for his interest in projection.

For Drebbel, the goal was not just to create a scientific instrument but to engineer a device that could produce a powerful visual effect for entertainment and public spectacle. This fusion of art, technology, and what was then considered “natural magic” is Drebbel’s defining characteristic and positions him as a transitional figure who helped to redefine the purpose and potential of optical devices.

A portion of a letter Drebbel wrote to his acquaintance Ysbrandt van Rietwyck in 1608.

CONCLUSION: AN ARTISAN OF LIGHT AND A CATALYST FOR PERCEPTION
Reassessing Drebbel’s Legacy: Beyond the Claim of Invention
A thorough analysis of Cornelius Drebbel’s relationship with the Camera Obscura and the Magic Lantern reveals a legacy that is more nuanced than a simple claim of invention.

For the Camera Obscura, his role was that of a master artisan who refined an existing scientific curiosity into a powerful, practical tool for art. The documented account of Constantijn Huygens, who was stunned by the breathtaking quality of the projected image, is a testament to the sophistication of Drebbel’s version.

He did not invent the device but rather perfected it, unlocking its full potential and demonstrating its revolutionary capabilities to a new audience.

Similarly, for the Magic Lantern, Drebbel was not the credited inventor, but he was a catalytic influence. By demonstrating the power of projected images in theatrical, “magical” performances, he planted the conceptual seed that would later be cultivated by the more scientifically rigorous Christiaan Huygens.

The transfer of this idea from Drebbel’s spectacle to the Huygens family’s scientific investigations highlights his crucial role in the lineage of this invention.

Final Insights: Drebbel’s Enduring Impact on Visual Culture
Drebbel’s greatest contribution may not be the singular invention of either device, but rather his pivotal role in a fundamental paradigm shift.

He was a central figure in the transition of optical instruments from being specialized tools of scientific inquiry to being powerful devices for entertainment, artistic expression, and popular spectacle.

He recognized the potential for these technologies to create experiences that transcended mere observation and entered the realm of dramatic visual culture. This focus on spectacle, combined with his technical mastery, laid the groundwork for the modern age of projected images, from photography and cinema to the immersive digital experiences of today.

His legacy is not found in the credit for being first, but in his enduring impact as a master craftsman and visionary who catalyzed the development of how we capture and project light.

Part of the aforementioned letter Drebbel wrote to his acquaintance Ysbrandt van Rietwyck in 1608, translated.

Martino Martini was an Italian Jesuit missionary, cartographer, and historian who worked primarily in China during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Born in Trento, he joined the Society of Jesus in 1632, studied astronomy and mathematics under Athanasius Kircher in Rome, and later pursued missionary work in China, where he arrived in 1642.

Martini is renowned for his contributions to Western knowledge of China through works like Novus Atlas Sinensis (1655) and De Bello Tartarico Historia (1654), which detailed the fall of the Ming dynasty and the Manchu conquest.

---

In 1629 Kircher had expressed to his superiors, an interest in going to China. Regarding his relationship with the Magic Lantern, the connection is tied to a specific event in 1654, when Belgian Jesuit mathematician André Tacquet used a projection technique developed by Athanasius Kircher to illustrate Martini’s journey from China to Belgium.

Kircher’s method, described in his 1645 Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae, involved a primitive projection system using a focusing lens and images painted on a concave mirror reflecting sunlight. Tacquet, a correspondent of Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, employed this technique to project images, likely on glass slides, to depict Martini’s travels.

---

Some historical reports suggest Martini himself lectured across Europe using a Magic Lantern, possibly one imported from China. However, there is no definitive evidence to support this claim, especially for those who may think the Magic Lantern originated in China, and it is widely believed that any device he might have used relied on Kircher’s technique rather than a distinct Chinese technology.

The idea of a Chinese origin for the Magic Lantern may stem from Martini’s association with China, but scholars consider this speculative, as the Magic Lantern’s development is purely Western, and primarily attributed to European innovations, with Huygens often credited as a key figure around 1659.

This information will be used to detail his specific contributions to the understanding of the camera obscura, placing him in a lineage with other contemporary figures like Kepler and della Porta.

Niceron told of charlatans who used the image-making process to cheat patrons out of their purses.

---

---

---

Niceron told of charlatans who used the image making process to cheat patrons out of their purses

---

---

1656
OLDEST MAGIC LANTERN IN THE WORLD
Johann van Musschenbroek is the maker of the oldest extant Magic Lantern we know of. The lantern is pictured below and resides at the Museum Boerhaave in Leiden, the Netherlands. Image the Museum Boerhaave, Leiden via de Luikerwaal.

---

---

---

Gravesande once owned this lantern of van Musschenbroek.

SEE Musschenbroek’s Magic Lantern in Gravesande’s book Physices elementa mathematica experimentis confirmata here at Internet Archive on page 76.

---

Notice the slide in the lantern is the same one that’s in the Gravesande book. Johann van Musschenbroek is the maker of the oldest extant Magic Lantern we know of.

Loret wrote a description of what was doubtless a Magic Lantern performance in 1656 France expressing how unusual and unique he thought it was. Even with Kircher and Huygens promoting them, Magic Lantern ‘shows’ were still somewhat rare in 1656.

---

---

---

---

---

In an 1868 review by the French press, Charles Dickens who loved the Magic Lantern, called Loret’s journal “the smartest of them all.” But Loret was censored in 1652, when the government barred him from writing anything about Church or State, according to Dickens.

More about Dickens and his incorporation of optical entertainment into his works, later.

1656
THREE- DIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE BOX
SAMUEL VAN HOOGSTRAATEN (1627-1678)
Hoogstraaten was a Dutch maker of perspective boxes and other optical toys. In 1656 he successfully attempted a three-dimensional exhibit in London. The show was the interior of the great church at Haarlem and featured the perspective box featured here shown below.

Two individual views from individual peepholes (seen in the image below with the red arrow) provided this 3-dimensional view of this model of a contemporary Dutch home. Five walls of the interior ‘box’ are painted with interior scenes of perspective while the front wall is left open for light.

Light once again comes into our story as it is this very light from the open side that plays against the perspective artwork of Hoogstraaten. He travelled all over Europe exhibiting his trompe l’oeil-based peepshow boxes.

---

---

Hoogstraten was a painter best known for his explorations in perspective. This perspective box that I am showing is the best surviving example of this facet of his work.

His interest in perspective was sparked by his friendship with Carel Fabritius. Both were pupils of Rembrandt in Amsterdam.

---

Pictured immediately below is Carel Fabritius’s View of Delft, 1652, not to be confused with the painting of the same name by Johannes Vermeer n the same century. Oil on Canvas. National Gallery, London. A master study in perspective.

---

---

Because of its faultless arrangement of perspectival optics, trompe l’oeil accuracy, and anamorphic distortion, Van Hoogstraten’s perspective box is a prime example of how the perspective paradigm regulates pictorial vision.

Pictured below is how it looks through the right side peephole.

---

Is that Hoogstraaten sitting, talking to someone with his back to us in the centre image? This Dutch Golden Age painters View of a Corridor at Dyrham Park from 1662, oil on canvas.

---

---

1657
THE REVOLVING WHEEL ILLUSION
GASPAR (ALSO GASPARIS SCHOTTI, CASPAR or KASPAR) SCHOTT (1608-1666)
 Schott, in the first volume (Part I: Optica) of Magia Universalis Naturae et Artis, describes an optical device—specifically a rapid revolving wheel—on which figures seem to distort or transform when spun. He connects the effect to limitations of visual persistence and the interplay of motion and perception.

Schott was a German Jesuit priest, scientist, and scholar known for his contributions to physics, mathematics, and natural philosophy during the Scientific Revolution. Born in Königshofen, Bavaria, he joined the Society of Jesus in 1627 and studied under Athanasius Kircher, a prominent polymath, in Rome.

Schott is best known for his extensive writings that compiled and disseminated scientific knowledge of his time, blending rigorous experimentation with curiosity about the natural world. Schott published his Magia Universalis Naturae et Artis (Schott, K., Wurzburg, 1657) and illustrates a small Camera Obscura (r) he was made aware of (Part 1, Magia Optica, Book 4, p200).

---

According to Martin Quigley, Jr. in his 1960 work Magic Shadows, states “probably the first man to write about … optical illusions caused by a rapidly revolving wheel, including the appearance of distorted figures.”

In his four-volume work Magia Universalis Naturae et Artis (1657–1659), he dedicated significant sections to optics, exploring topics like light, lenses, and visual phenomena.

---

When spun rapidly, these figures appeared distorted or transformed, which Schott linked to the limitations of human visual persistence and motion perception. The Phantasmagoria became popular in the late 18th century, as did Dissolving Views and the Wheel of Life.

---

Magia Universalis is a four‑volume work published between 1657–59. The spinning‑wheel illusion is described in Volume I, which covers Optica (Optics). It appears in the chapter on Magia Optica—illustrating early tricks of vision like anamorphosis and motion‑based distortions.

Although exact pagination varies by edition, the passage is around incipit at p88 in the Frankfurt 1677 printing of Magia Optica (Volume I of Magia Universalis).

This is where Schott explicitly coins “anamorphotica” and describes “wheel‑induced image distortions.” This text contains a section on “deceptive” images and visual tricks, including rotating mechanisms that alter the appearance of the image to the observer due to speed-induced perceptual effects.

This passage is sometimes cited in histories of pre cinema or the study of proto animation as an early nod toward the idea that motion + optics = illusion.

---

---

Below, from the inside cover of Pantometrum Kircherianum (Kircherian Pantometer) published by Würzburg Hertz, 1660 is this rendering of what Gaspar Schott looked like.

Here’s the Latin passage followed by a faithful translation:

“Cum rota celeriter revolvitur, figurae inaequales apparent, deformes, et aspectus visus concurrit cum celeritate motus, ita ut imaginatio sibi praeesset visui.”

Translation:“When the wheel is turned swiftly, the figures appear unequal, deformed, and the perception of vision cannot keep pace with the speed of motion—so that the imagination leads perception.”

---

---

In this edition, Volume I (Magia Optica) was reissued separately and enriched with clarifying chapter headings. Schott includes more expansive commentary on rotating devices that produce distorted images.

The specific section begins at page 88, under the thematic category “anamorphotica” —denoting images that reshape under motion. The Würzburg edition’s plates resemble those shown in the carousel, particularly the wheel-like mechanism visible in the second panel.

While captions are minimal, the demonstration of a rotating apparatus intended to warp figures is clearly depicted.

---

The engraving features a vertical axle supporting a patterned wheel—likely on a stand or frame. Around it are Latin labels and directional arrows, showing how rotation distorts the patterns. Schott applies the term “anamorphotica” to this device.

He’s pointing out not an artistic trick but a functional optical effect caused by rapid motion. This is not just curious imagery—it’s a mechanized optical demonstration, decades ahead of mainstream acknowledgment.

---

This is indeed Schott’s firsthand description of the revolving wheel illusion—a powerful early insight into motion‑induced visual distortion well before devices like the Phenakistiscope or Zoetrope.

It’s quite interesting that in researching these books during the period marking the emergence of the science revolution within the post medieval period, that we see a hand or arm that’s holding the tool or instrument we’re talking about, appearing to be coming out of a cloud.

This is seen in so many books of this age.

This was just one example here in Schott’s book. There is a ton that show the arm coming out of the cloud.

Back then they downloaded from the cloud, and today we upload to the cloud. I always thought that was interesting.

1658 
THOMAS RASMUSSEN WALGENSTEN (1627-1681)
A professor of mathematics at the University of Leyden, Walgensten begins to improve on the Magic Lantern and show it throughout Europe, traveling widely. Now introduced commercially, the Magic Lantern is presented as early as 1660 in Rome, 1662 in Paris, 1665 in Lyons, 1670 again in Rome and in Copenhagen.

Both Kircher in his Ars Magna (the second edition of 1671 on pages 768 and 769) and De Chales Cursus Seu Mundus Mathematicus (second edition in 1690, Volume III on page 696) speak of the “learned Dane who came to Lyons in 1665.” 

Other historians including this one, attribute Walgensten as the “Dane” who Kircher and De Chales spoke of. In thirty-two years of looking, I have never found any kind of likeness for Walgensten. Not even on the internet. We may never know what he looked like.

---

---

---

1659
This drawing by Christiaan Huygens from 1659 seen directly below and of which I spoke on not long ago in this website, was inspired by a Hans Holbein woodblock cut from 1524 called “The Dance of Death.”

These drawings of skeletons in motion are the very representation of images that will appear through the lens of the Magic Lantern in the late 18th century when Monsieur Robertson comes with his Phantasmagorie during the French Revolution.

Holbein’s series of woodcuts certainly inspired Huygens and in return Huygens would inspire Robertson over a century later when the Phantasmagorie was introduced to Parisians through the Magic Lantern. The precursor to today’s horror movie. Below four of Holbein’s scenes.

---

---

---

---

---

1659
JOHANNES VERMEER VAN DELFT (1632-1675)
It is highly likely that this Dutch master of the 17th century used the Camera Obscura in his View of Delft (1659, housed at ) below. The Hockney-Falco theory claims masters of the 16th and 17th centuries did. I agree and many others do.

---

The camera’s use is highly suggested by other commentators and art historians like Kees Kaldenbach. His comments on View of Delft and the “circles of confusion” leave us with little doubt that Vermeer used the camera;

---

The Rainbow Ring Effect and The Camera Lens. Without the use of the camera, Vermeer would never have seen the effect of these rings. This reproduction (below) barely shows the effect but they are something you see in almost every film you watch today.

It almost seems DP’s want the effect on screen–when you see the rainbow ring small or large, faded or strong, due to direct sunlight or a lessor simulated light appear in the movie through the lens.

It detracts from what ever is happening on screen because it distracts your attention. That rainbow ring effect. Vermeer’s Girl with a Red Hat also shows the “rainbow ring effect.”

Below is the area of the painting where Vermeer saw the ring, and painted it into the hull of the ship, as if he wanted us to see it, and that we would know that he was looking through a lens.

---

CIRCLES OF CONFUSION?
Circle of Confusion are what defines focus. The circle’s size affects the sharpness of an image, and its depth of field. What Vermeer saw through his lens, is best explained in this excellent video that clarifies it all from The Kinetic Image.

---

---

At the 2003 gathering that studied the Hockney-Falco theory (Optics, Optical Instruments And Painting: The Hockney-Falco Thesis Revisited ESF Exploratory Workshop, 12-15 November 2003, Ghent) based on David Hockney’s 2001 book Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering The Lost Techniques Of The Old Masters which claims that master painters of the 16th and 17th centuries (late thesis) used optics, namely concave mirrors, lenses and in particular the Camera Obscura in their work, Philip Steadman of University College London supported the theory. 

His contribution, Idealism, Realism, and Vermeer’s Use of the Camera Obscura, included the following;

“As the domestic interiors of Vermeer are studied with ever greater attention, more and more of the objects depicted – pieces of furniture, maps, globes, ‘painted paintings’ – turn out to be real objects, represented (for the most part) with great fidelity, at their precise known sizes.

On the evidence of my own perspective analyses, as well as recent archival work by Warffemius, it transpires that the room which provides the setting for as many as ten of these pictures has the same dimensions and the same windows as the first-floor studio which Vermeer occupied in his mother-in-law’s house from the late 1650s. The artist’s two townscapes, the ‘View of Delft’ and ”The Little Street’ can be shown, I believe – contrary to the opinions of some Vermeer scholars -to be slavishly faithful in detail to the appearances of the actual scenes in question.

In all these respects then, Vermeer was a realist, who achieved this truth to appearances through his systematic employment of the camera obscura. For some art historians, nevertheless, this line of argument is repugnant, since for them it is at odds with a Vermeer whose work lies in a tradition of idealised, conventionalised Dutch genre subjects; whose two-dimensional compositions are not ‘snapshots’ but meticulous constructions of carefully balanced shapes; and whose paintings are scattered – although not so liberally as those of some contemporaries – with emblematic allusions and iconographical meaning.

All these points are valid ones. I will argue that their validity is, however, perfectly compatible with a camera technique. For Vermeer the camera obscura was a ‘composition machine’ with which, working like a 19th century studio photographer, he was able to design idealised, highly-considered, in some instances even richly allegorical compositions, by the arrangement of real objects in real rooms.”     

^{– Philip Steadman,Thursday November 13, 2003, Ghent}

---

Another view on Vermeer comes to us from Anson K. Cross who was a painter, teacher and writer on the subject of art in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Cross theory on Vermeer is fascinating and to describe it best he created a Camera Obscura of his own. 

He called it “Vermeer’s Camera.” Included with images of the Cross camera are two patent schematics.

Visit the Jack and Beverly Wilgus website The Magic Mirror of Life for the complete Cross theory.

---

---

Directly associated with our study on Vermeer’s use of the Camera Obscura, is this companion piece, called Celestial Sleuth which sheds additional light on Vermeer’s masterpiece View of Delft.

---

---

A Tribute to Vermeer. You must watch this. An amazing one minute tribute that leaves me speechless. My hat is off to Wytse Koetse 🎬 @Wytsekoetse at X.

Na het zien van indrukwekkende AI-films deze zomer, werd ik geïnspireerd om 2 dagen mijn tanden te zetten in het tot leven wekken van de schilderijen van Vermeer met #RunwayGen3. Dit is het resultaat: 'A Tribute to Vermeer', met een vleugje editing en sound design. pic.twitter.com/ij2yMVV0rV

— Wytse Koetse 🎬 (@Wytsekoetse) August 9, 2024

On page 197 of the same document, we learn more about Huygens’ relationship to the Magic Lantern.

Showing his now-famous skeletons, he writes “Pour des répresentation par le moyen de verres convexes à la lampe” interpreted as “To show by means of convex glasses on the lamp.”

Immediately below is a reproduction of Huygen’s original sketch of the lantern.

---

---

The letter below, to his friend the French engineer P. Petit offers many references to the Magic Lantern.

On 28 November, 1664, Petit inquires (p269 below) about the proportions and structure of Huygen’s lantern. This letter contains the earliest known sketch since Fontana (244 years).

As historian and collector Henc de Roo at de Luikerwaal states; “Probably this is the lantern he used to project the images of the skeletons.”

---

Huygens once had one of his Magic Lanterns dismantled en-route by his brother Lodewijk so it wouldn’t reach its destination and be known by all of Europe as one of his. This was the lantern his father had asked for. He sent the lantern but told Lodewijk;

---

The idea that Huygens created a projection lantern by 1659 strongly suggests that;

“He must be considered to be the true inventor, though Huygens himself always tried to conceal the fact that the invention was his.” – Historian Henc R. A. de Roo, Huizen, the Netherlands.

---

1660s–1670s
HONOURABLE MENTION
SAMUEL MORLAND’S POCKET RECKONER
SIR SAMUEL MORLAND (1625-1695)
The Reckoner refers to a type of calculating device that circulated in the 17^th to 19th centuries, under names like Reckoner, calculating machine, or arithmetical instrument. A Reckoner was a small brass device with concentric dials and sliders, essentially an early calculator. Merchants, bankers, and engineers could add, subtract, and sometimes multiply without pen and paper. Why his Pocket Reckoner relates to pre cinema: Morland was not just a “calculator man.”

_{Reckoner image Science Museum Group, London}

He moved between mathematics, mechanics, hydraulics, and optics. The same mind that designed the Reckoner also worked on speaking trumpets, automaton toys, and optical experiments.

---

The Reckoner I found, is part of the broader prehistory of computational devices, which sometimes overlaps with pre cinema because the same inventors (e.g., Morland, Kircher, Knauss) worked across optics, automata, and mathematics. In the 18th century, ‘ready reckoners’ (printed and mechanical) were often displayed at fairs, alongside Peep-Shows and scientific toys, part of the same culture of demonstrative machines that nurtured pre cinema optics.

_{Reckoner image Science Museum Group, London}

The Morland Pocket Reckoner was a hand-sized engraved brass plate, with small windows and rotating wheels. You’d set a number, turn a wheel, and it would carry over totals via geared linkages visually, and not far from the dial faces and aperture masks used in later optical entertainments.

---

A patron in 1700 would have seen a Reckoning device, a Magic Lantern, and a miniature automaton in the same cabinet of curiosities, all feeding the appetite for machines that could think, move, or present something.

1660s
LANTERNE DE PEUR
PIERRE PETIT (1598–1677)
A physicist, court engineer, and optical theorist, Petit was part of the scientific circle of Louis XIV and is often overlooked in histories of projection and image management. In a rare treatise, he described the “chambre obscure” as a space not just for atmospheric observation but also for visual performances, suggesting enhancements like lenses and reflectors to dramatize the projected imagery. He advocated a purposefully theatrical use of the Camera Obscura—a hint of proto cinema’s immersive ambitions.

---

This positions him as one of the earliest to explicitly adapt Magic Lanterns for themed emotional impact (designed to evoke a specific mood, in this case fear or dread, or emotionally charged illusion, affective spectacle, even pre cinematic mood control), beyond mere image projection.

A notable precursor to horror cinema. Even though the Magic Lantern was projecting scary images from its very beginnings, these suggestions by Petit were about 110 years before the Phantasmagoria.

---

DARKROOM AS THEATRE
Petit’s writings strongly suggest he viewed the Camera Obscure/audience space as not only observational, but performative, utilizing lenses, mirrors, and movable plates to stage dramatic visual effects, much like an immersive theatre.

While he didn’t create long narrative sequences, he exploited chiaroscuro and fleeting images—manipulating light, darkness, and audience anxiety. His surviving correspondence with Huygens (circa 1664) discussing the “lanterne de peur” remains unpublished and is currently untraced in major archives.

Other mentions appear in 17^th century Dutch scientific journals like Acta Eruditorum [pictured] founded in 1682 in Leipzig by Otto Mencke, who became its first editor, with support from Gottfried Leibniz in Hanover, whom I have a series on.

---

Here, from pages 49-78 of Laurent Mannoni’s Christian Huygens and the Fear Lantern: The appearance of the Magic Lantern in the 17th Century, published in 1991, we have Petit coining the term Lantern of Fear.

1662
KARAKURI
JAPANESE PUPPET THEATRE
Clockmaker Takeda Omi on 25 May opened a theatre for the exhibition of Karakuri in Osaka Japan. A theatre for mechanical toys and automata in the Karakuri Ningyo tradition.

---

the Japanese played a significant role in the history of the discovery of cinematography

---

Karakuri Japanese Puppet Theatre is a creative fusion of mechanics, wizardry (aka Méliès), surprise, scenario, illusion and puppetry.The word Karakuri means to tease or trick and can imply hidden magic, or an element of mystery. 

No different than films. The Takeda Omi family became a virtual Japanese Puppet Theatre dynasty, carrying on this cinema style art for more than one hundred years and five generations.

---

---

The Karakuri repertoire is illustrated in a three volume set I have kindly received from Gema Grueso Otalo, a Conservator-Restorer of Contemporary Art in Madrid, from the British Museum. It’s called Karakuri Kimmo Kagamigusa and was published in 1730.

Up to 30 illustrations apparently show the puppets to move by gear wheels or clockwork cogs. Several of these are directly below.

Thanks to The Trustees of the British Museum.

---

---

So popular were the Karakuri Japanese Puppet Theatres of Takeda Omi that it’s documented that so many people thronged his theatre that it had to be closed for days at a time.

---

When reading about the immense popularity of these highly anticipated motion entertainment shows, I immediately thought of both Gone with the Wind in 1939, and Star Wars in 1977.

Except for the closing-of-the-theatre part of the story.

---

1664
THE SCOTOSCOPE
RICHARD REIVES (possibly 1620-1685)
The English optician and telescope maker Richard Reives took an interest in the Magic Lantern, and is mentioned in a Samuel Pepys diary entry of 19 August, 1666 on said topic;

---

---

Every record I have come across that talks of this event, speaks of it as a gift or as an extra something thrown in with the microscope as if it were a stick of candy or a fridge magnet. Not so. There was a reason Reives added the Scotoscope. Read on.

---

The question still exists 360 years later: what is the Scotoscope. Some researchers and historians say it’s simply the Camera Obscura, stopping short of identifying the Camera Obscura-looking box at the top of page 221, figure 1 in Robert Hooke’s Micrographia in 1665.

---

Hooke’s Micrographia does in fact contain the mystery Scotoscope.

It’s an oil lamp that uses a glass sphere filled with “exceeding clear brine” to focus light on the subject “with the small flame of a Lamp may be cast as great and convenient a light on the object as will endure.”

---

Hooke’s exacting details explaining the Scotoscope and how it works from Micrographia figure 5, found in the preface section of the 1665 and 1667 editions. Hiding in plain sight it was.

---

---

---

---

The Scotoscope was never a gift. It wasn’t a trinket thrown in to a sale to ensure customer-merchant relations, or was it a fridge magnet. It was part of the sale. It came with the microscope because Hooke designed it to be an add-on to provide greater illumination and become “a curious curiosity it is to see objects in a dark room with.”

---

This illustration below and above, is from page 666 of Walgensten’s Magic Lantern, found in De Chales Cursus Seu Mundus Mathematicus, (De Chales, F., M., 1st edition, 2nd volume) from 1665 but published in 1674.

It shows one candle providing the light and accompanied by a reflecting mirror.

---

This idea appears in Kircher’s work as a speculative or illustrative mechanism, using a pipe or sealed tube inside the cart where it is partially filled with quicksilver. A candle heats the tube from below, causing the mercury to expand or vaporize slightly (depending on temperature and setup).

The shift in the mercury’s position or pressure would move the centre of gravity or generate enough force to tip or slide the pipe, like pushing a piston in an air chamber, creating momentum sufficient to animate the wagon. Ingenious.

---

This idea originates from Kircher’s Mundus Subterraneus (1665), where he discusses the powers of underground vapors, thermal currents, and subterranean fire where several mechanisms were driven by heated fluids, including one that used mercury.

While Kircher doesn’t seem to have built the wagon, the concept fits within his Jesuit techno-theatrical ethos: showcasing the power of nature as divine animation.

---

This kind of thinking illustrates Kircher’s mind to us, connecting natural phenomena to motion, very much in the lineage of pre cinematic kinetic illusions. There are credible historical accounts that the ancient Chinese also used quicksilver as part of mechanisms to animate or give motion to puppets and automata, particularly in courtly or ritual settings.

Three specific historical references I found, showcase my point;

1. Lieh-Tzu (列子) The 3rd century BC text in the chapter ‘Tang Wen,’ there is a story of an artificer named Yan Shi (偃師) who presented a lifelike mechanical man to Emperor Mu of Zhou (c. 10th century BC). The automaton could walk, move its limbs, sing, and wink, and even flirt with the court ladies.

The Lieh-Tzu says the figure was made of leather, wood, glue, and lacquer, but doesn’t list quicksilver directly—yet the sophistication implies hidden fluidic components.

2. The Han Dynasty Tombs state mercury was used extensively in burial chambers—notably, the tomb of the First Emperor Qin Shi Huang (d. 210 BC) is said to have rivers of mercury to simulate real geography. Some scholars argue these mercury flows could have been linked to mechanical or symbolic movement, possibly driving puppetry-like models or Dioramas underground.

3. The Daoist Alchemical Texts tell us that in Daoist traditions, quicksilver was considered a living substance, embodying yin-yang duality. Some Daoist automata and magical devices (not defined) were believed to use mercury for motion, using its density and fluidity to create balance, oscillation, or tipping 小費 effects.

---

The Chinese had complex mechanical puppets from at least the Han Dynasty, some used in Shadow Theatre, others in miniature ritual scenes. Mercury’s high density would have made it ideal for counterweight or flow-driven motion, especially in automated figures activated by heat or tilt 傾斜.

Ancient Chinese engineers and artificers used quicksilver in some automaton or puppet-like devices, although my evidence is inferential, fragmented, and often symbolic. The combination of mercury’s physical propulsion properties and its mythic-alchemical role supports the idea that it powered or animated ancient figures specially within elite, ritual, or theatrical contexts.

1666
JOHANNES VERMEER VAN DELFT (1632-1675)
Vermeer used the Camera Obscura in his 1666 oil on canvas entitled The Art of Painting.

He was able to provide a realism to this and other works, more than two hundred years before the discovery of photography. In using the Camera Obscura to prepare and line up the people and objects within the room, Vermeer was one of the earliest users of the camera along with other masters within this century.

---

In using tack lines Vermeer brought the vanishing point and the viewer’s eye, to just in front of the Muse of History, Clio. This can be seen directly below in the following images.

As filmmaker Peter Greenaway states, “Vermeer was the world’s first cinematographer because he dealt in a world completely manifest by light.”

---

---

This image below shows the spot where the tack was placed by Vermeer, just below Clio’s right hand, and the rod holding the map. The mark where the tack was, is still there.

---

“Vermeer was the world’s first cinematographer because he dealt in a world completely manifest by light”

---

As Vermeer presented the “circles of confusion” in View of Delft as seen through the Camera Obscura lens, so did he present the natural blur of the drapery on the table and the sharpness of the painter himself in perfect focus just as the camera provides.

---

By Vermeer’s time, the Camera was portable and easier for artists to maneuver and set up. The lenses provided sharper and more vivid images.

Below, Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) by Peter Webber with Scarlett Johansson and Colin Firth as the main characters however, photo-bombed by the showcased Camera Obscura in this scene.

Here is the “how did it get in there?” scene from Peter Webber’s Vermeer biopic Girl with a Pearl Earring from 2003 (Pathé Productions, Lions Gate Films).

---

A post-contemporary of Vermeer, G. J. Gravesande, who was born 13 years after Vermeer’s death had this to say of Vermeer’s use of the camera, from Jonathan Janson’s Essential Vermeer 3.0;

---

---

---

The Camera Lucida is used even today by artists. You can use a Camera Lucida today, even if you have a streak of purple hair. The teddy bear is reflected through the lens and down onto the paper where it can easily be seen, and drawn. When first invented, this optical device was a big hit with artists.

---

This video of a Camera Lucida is by Brian Krijgsman @BrianKrijgsman

---

1666
NEWTON’S DISK
The English mathematician and natural philosopher Isaac Newton made many important contributions to the study of optics, even apart from his famous laws of motion and gravity. One of them that pertain directly to pre cinema, is the discovery of the seven colours of the light spectrum hidden within white light.

Isaac Newton, the famed English physicist and mathematician, began a series of experiments with sunlight and prisms. He established that pure white or clear light was made up of seven distinct colours. This work paved the way for others to experiment with colour scientifically by establishing our visible spectrum (the colours we see in a rainbow).

His research contributed to advances in optics, physics, chemistry, perception, and the study of colour in nature. Aristotle had developed the first known theory of colour, believing it was sent by God from heaven through celestial rays of light. He suggested that all colours came from white and black (lightness and darkness) and related them to the four elements – water, air, earth, and fire.

Aristotle’s beliefs on colour were widely held for over 2000 years until being replaced by those of Newton. One of the finest works in the history of science, Opticks, describes Newton’s discoveries from his experiments with light passing through a prism. He identified the visible spectrum’s sometimes known as ROYGBIV- the colours red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.

The visible spectrum is the fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum that the human eye can see. Radio, gamma, and microwaves are examples of invisible electromagnetic radiation, or energy waves. The cone cells in our eyes are sensitive to wavelengths in the visible range. They enable us to view all of the rainbow’s colours.

---

---

---

---

SEE Newton’s Colour Disk and Dispersion of Light from the Hume Centre here for a complete understanding of colour and the importance it holds in cinematography.

---

---

---

---

---

---

He couldn’t mix pigments of opposite hues to make white light because pigments are based on subtractive colour, unlike light, which is additive colour.

With the Netwon’s Disk app installed on your phone you can see the colours disappear into white by spinning the colour wheel with your finger.

---

Referring to Robert Boyle and the darkening of silver salts being due ‘to the air,’ is this excerpt taken from The History of Photography – From the Camera Obscura to The Beginning of The Modern Era, Helmut and Alison Gernsheim, Thames and Hudson, London, 1969, on p30.

---

---

---

1668
ROBERT HOOKE (1635-1703)
This English scientist reported to the Royal Society a paper (Royal Society, Nº 38, volume 3, 1668) about a “universal projection system” and “a contrivance to make the picture of anything appear on a wall, in the midst of a light room in the daytime.”

---

Below, Kircher describes this light-enhancing apparatus made for the Magic Lantern, as well as how to build it, and how it works;

Here is the full page and close up of the original Athanasius Kircher device or way of enhancing the light.

Found in his Ars Magna lucis et umbrae 2nd edition, Rome, 1671 on p887. READ Ars Magna lucis et umbrae (1st edition, Rome, 1646) at Internet Archive.

---

---

---

---

Preceding the revolving disks of the 19^th century, Kircher included his own illustration of a peculiar mechanism for presenting visual stories in spherical form in the 1671 edition of his Ars Magna. From my studies, this is currently the earliest motion slide presentation I know of, beating out Johann Franz Griendel von Ach by a year. Remember Doctor Patin’s report?

---

It can be thought of as an early form of visual storytelling, showcasing the potential of optics and projected images to create narratives and immersive experiences, predating many later cinematic and animation technologies.

---

---

---

Kircher’s Parastatic Microscope like the Smicroscopin seen above and below, was a glass disc with minute images painted on it that was fixed in a spherical oak housing. The images are viewed through a lens while the disc rotates. It’s similar to a slide projector of today, according to Godwin (Joscelyn Godwin Athanasius Kircher’s Theatre of the World, Inner Traditions, 2009).

And it gets close to producing a moving image- all it needs is a shutter, like a film projector, or slits broken up with blackness, like a Zoetrope or Phenakistascope, to separate images and activate our newly coined Apparent Motion.

---

The illustration above is from the book La Dioptrique Oculaire of 1671 by Cherubin d’Orleans. It’s found in the second section on page 16. It was D’Orleans version of a Camera Obscura or pinhole room showing the light rays and their inversion at the aperture.

A lens appears at d and letters e f g appear inverted to g f e on the inside wall.

SEE page 16 of La Dioptrique Oculaire here.

---

In this marvellous book which you can see for yourself, D’Orleans talks about binocular vision, double eyepiece glasses, and stereoscopy with full illustrations. You will find them in chapter two p106 and chapter four p213.

Three of those pages shown below.

Here is what I have, on a man named Johann Franz Griendel von Ach, a German instrument maker and microscopist who has been called the “absolute Master of the most abstruse Secrets in Opticks” by the witness who saw what he had to show in the way of moving pictures, in 1672 …….

Griendel, a former Capuchin monk turned optical instrument manufacturer, put on a Magic Lantern display for Doctor Charles Patin (1633-1693), a Parisian medical doctor and antiquarian who visited Nürnberg this year.

He was a German microscopist and constructor of optical instruments, notably designing and building microscopes. His most significant work was the development of a microscope with a unique three-lens system, which he used to make detailed observations of insects, plants, and other small objects.

---

---

Patin was a curiosity-seeker who sought out new discoveries in the sciences. He was quite awestruck by Griendel and his demonstration of shall we say moving pictures? Patin referenced Griendel as “absolutely Master of the most abstruse Secrets in Opticks,” and “there never was in the World a greater Magitian [sic] than he.”

This was described in his book Micrographia nova (1687), where he showcased his microscope’s capabilities through numerous engravings. He operated a workshop in Nuremberg, offering various optical instruments, and later worked as an engineer in Dresden and Vienna.

---

The Patin exposé on what he saw is without exaggeration an extraordinary extant account word for word, of the 17th century Magic Lantern on display in all its glory;

---

---

Running at the ring is the Middle Ages joust; men on horseback spearing a ring, or themselves with a long lance. Could simulated motion like this be achieved if not through the use of at least Mechanical Motion Lantern Slides like that of Musschenbroek?

But wait. That wasn’t until 1739.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Here is an illustration by Sturm in 1676 titled Experiment zur Erklärung des Prinzips der Camera Obscura translated as Experiment to Explain the Principle of The Camera Obscura.

A copper engraving from paper, depicting how the retina in our eye is the same as the Camera Obscura.

Sturm was a German philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, and one of the first experimental physicists. Born in Hilpoltstein, he studied at Jena and Leiden, later becoming a professor of mathematics and physics at the University of Altdorf, where he spent most of his career.

He was also a Lutheran priest and founded the short-lived scientific academy Collegium Curiosum, inspired by the Florentine Accademia del Cimento. Sturm is known for his eclectic philosophy, blending mechanism, occasionalism, and final causes, and for defending the experimental method in natural philosophy.

He corresponded with prominent figures like Robert Boyle and Gottfried Leibniz, notably critiquing Leibniz’s views on nature in his book Physica Electiva (1697).

Sturm translated Archimedes’ works into German in 1670 and published two volumes of the Collegium’s proceedings, Collegium Experimentale (1676 and 1685).

It compares the inversion of the Pinhole image within the eye, as a camera. Listed as Experiment Zur Erklärung des Prinzips der Camera Obscura (Experiment to Explain the Principle of The Camera Obscura).

---

---

---

Patin’s interpretation of Griendel’s Magic Lantern exhibition is the most detailed report of a 17th-century Magic Lantern show, that has survived.

It even compares to that of Kircher’s Ars Magna account. And, it even hints of the Phantasmagoria 100 years into the future.

---

---

---

Patin’s comments such as “the Air fill’d with all sorts of Birds” and “running at the ring” remind us of “how the horses prance around after the lamp is lit.”

This is a reference I believe to Chiang Khuei & Fang Chheng’s writings on primitive lantern animation in Meng Liang Lu, in the 12th century which we talked about in the first chapter.

But had Patin or von Ach read the Meng Liang Lu?

---

---

1673
CHRISTOPH ADOLPH BALDUIN (1632-1682)
This Saxon magistrate produced calcium nitrate, a luminous substance, by mixing chalk and nitric acid, and published his findings in Miscellanea Curiosa Medico-Physica Academiae.

He calls his find the “carrier of light.”

Balduin was a member of the German Imperial Academy of Sciences, and produces a phosphorescent stone after chemical treatment.

He names his preparation Phosphorus Hermeticus or, alternatively, Magnes Luminaris because it “attracted light as a magnet attracts particles.”

In 1675 Christoph Adolph Balduin publishes a paper describing his phosphorus but he omits the method he used to obtain it. In 1676 he sent a sample of his phosphorus to the Royal Society in London.

1674
CLAUDE FRANCOIS MILLIET DE CHALES (1621-1678)
Dechales, also known as De Chales or Deschales, was a French Jesuit priest, mathematician, and scholar born in Chambéry, Savoy (then part of France). The son of Hector Milliet de Challes, a prominent figure in the Sovereign Senate of Savoy, he entered the Jesuit order at age 15 in 1636.

His career was marked by significant contributions to mathematics and education, as well as missionary work and teaching across various disciplines. Dechales played a significant role in documenting and promoting the Magic Lantern. He supported the idea of successive glass slides on a horizontal plain, in 1674, as Kircher did in 1646.

The motion of the Magic Lantern comes to life in these eight slides telling the story of ‘Our Life Boat Men,’ a series by Butcher and Sons produced around the late 19th century, because no series slides from the time of De Chales exist to my knowledge.

They portray the heroic efforts of lifeboat crews. These slides were part of a narrative sequence, accompanied by a script to guide the presenter in telling a dramatic story of maritime rescue in cinematic form. Each slide captures a moment in the lifeboat men’s journey, from preparation to rescue.

---

This French mathematician, and professor of humanities wrote two editions of his monumental ‘Cursus Seu Mundus Mathematicus’ (De Chales, F. M. 1st edition 1674, 2nd edition 1690, Paris, France) and illustrates (1st edition 1674, volume ii, p666) the lantern of Walgensten.

In the second edition of his influential work, (1690, Lyon), he included illustrations and descriptions of a Magic Lantern prototype developed by Danish mathematician Thomas Rasmussen Walgensten. Dechales referenced Walgensten’s device, which was an improved version of the Magic Lantern toured across Europe in the mid-1660s.

He noted its value for scientific instruction, particularly for projecting enlarged images of insects and other specimens, highlighting its educational potential.

This documentation helped spread awareness of the Magic Lantern’s capabilities, contributing to its recognition as a tool for both entertainment and scientific demonstration in the late 17th century.

De Chales improved on the already well-known lantern by undertaking improvements in focus, focal point, better illumination, and a sharper image.

SEE and READ the Walgensten lantern in Cursus Seu Mundus Mathematicus by Claude Francois Milliet De Chales from 1674 here at Internet Archive.

Born in Leipzig, Germany, in 1646, Leibniz was a child prodigy who entered the University of Leipzig at age 14 and received his doctorate in law at 20. In 1675, in Paris, Leibniz envisioned a significant role for the Magic Lantern in a grand plan for a sort of world exhibition. He said he would use the Lantern to “open and close the show.” He suggested that such an exhibition could commence with Magic Lantern projections, including:

🎬  Flights and imitation meteors
🎬  Various optical marvels
🎬  Representations of the sky with stars and comets
🎬  A model of the Earth
🎬  Fireworks, fountains, and strange vessels🎬  Rare plants and animals

---

CHARACTERISTICA UNIVERSALIS
While not directly an optical showman like Kircher became, Leibniz was fascinated by perception, optics, and representation. He speculated on how the eye and brain process small changes into continuous perception. Not persistence of vision or the newly coined Apparent Motion, in the later 19^th century sense, but definitely in the lineage of thinking about motion and continuity.

His universal calculus of reasoning (coined as characteristica universalis), foreshadows symbolic logic, which underpins computational imaging, animation, and even algorithmic simulation today.

Pictured here is an autographed letter signed by Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz to ‘Mon Patron’ Ludolf Hugo, referencing some subject dated in the 11th century.

Consider this . . . . Leibniz wasn’t a pre cinema inventor per se, but his ideas about perception, continuity, binary coding, and mechanized calculation all fed into the intellectual backdrop that would eventually make the multitude of pre cinema devices possible, especially anything that treats images as discrete units that can be sequenced.

---

BINARY ARITHMETIC → SEQUENTIAL IMAGES
Leibniz developed binary (1s and 0s) in 1679. This is the first formalization of breaking reality into discrete units that can be recombined. Pre cinema devices like the Phenakistiscope and Zoetrope do exactly this: cut continuous motion into discrete frames and then recombine them for continuity and motion.

Therefore, photography and cinema are nothing but binary on/off light impressions on a surface. Leibniz anticipated this logic centuries earlier than anyone else.

PERCEPTION and CONTINUITY
Leibniz wrote about apperception and how the mind stitches micro-perceptions together into continuity. He said “Many tiny perceptions make up our conscious experience, though we are unaware of them individually.”

This directly foreshadows persistence of vision or the newly coined Apparent Motion debates: how the eye/brain blends flickers into smooth motion. Devices like Dissolving Views, Phantasmagoria, or later cinema rely on this principle – small changes, rapidly sequenced, become a continuous experience.

---

MONADOLOGY → PIXELS OF PERCEPTION
Leibniz’s monads: indivisible units of reality, each reflecting the whole world can be thought of in pre cinema, as frames in a strip of film: each is a complete world-image, but meaning only emerges in sequenced motion. Even more directly, monads anticipate pixels, discrete visual units forming the continuum of vision, which present optical toys as proto pixel machines.

A single film frame (or pixel) is like a monad, complete in itself, but only meaningful in relation to others in sequence or grid.

In pre cinema, frames flicker too fast to be noticed individually (which we want to happen), but together they produce continuous motion. Exactly the same logic. Every image in cinema/television/digital animation is ultimately stored as binary units of light and dark (pixels, bits).

The Phenakistiscope’s alternating slits are an early physical analogue of binary on/off states. In stereoscopy (Wheatstone’s stereoscope, 1838), each eye/monad has its own image, but together they create depth or, a unified world. This is Leibniz’s harmony of perspectives made optical.

---

His monads and binary logic flow directly into frames, pixels, or the newly coined Apparent Motion, optical toys, cinema, and finally digital media.

---

Leibniz contemplated how the Magic Lantern could represent motion. He suggested that it could be used for “extraordinary and grotesque movements, which men would not be capable of making.”  

Is this a premonition of CGI?

He even imagined combining the Magic Lantern with a new kind of “Marionette theatre” to create moving figures that would throw shadows onto a transparent screen, appearing “dazzling” and “enlarged.”

This shows that Leibniz, with his broad interests in optics, technology, and entertainment, recognized the Magic Lantern not just as a simple projection device, but as a tool with significant potential for creating illusions, educating, and providing innovative entertainment.

He saw its ability to combine visual effects with storytelling and music to create a truly immersive experience, foreshadowing later developments in visual media.

Leibniz is one of the hidden intellectual ancestors of cinema.

---

---

Neu-erfundene mathematische und optische Curiositäten, written by Johann Christoph Kohlhans in 1677 on pp406 and 407 is pictured directly below. His “Opticum Libellum” or Camera Obscura is shown across the two pages disassembled in pieces.

I have constructed a legend from these pages naming the components. The translation for the book is Re-invented mathematical and optical curiosities.

As we will see throughout the 17th C, many different shaped Cameras appear such as Wren’s Scenograph Pyramid, Hooke’s two Cones, the Zahn Cabinet Camera and the list goes on. It was an assortment of optical treats, as the Kohlhans “Opticum Libellum” shows.

---

---

THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIEWS
As early as 1677 Kohlhans, a German writer and teacher, wrote how using a convex lens on a Camera Obscura gave an image, the impression of being a three-dimensional view. Breadth would mean depth and his reference to familiarity he likely meant relief. Kohlhans stated;

---

---

The 3D phenomenon was well-known throughout Europe, but it was not widely publicised or financially exploited. However, in the 1740s convex lenses and perspective prints were bundled together as consumer goods in England. Bundled?

THE ZOGRASCOPE
The Zograscope was a lenticular viewer and part of the first 3D device fad. Zograscopes and Zograscope prints seen directly below on the right, as well as hundreds of various engraved and hand-coloured images from the device, began to appear in English journals, catalogues, pamphlets and advertisements from around 1740 to about 1750.

---

---

---

Zograscope views were sold in great quantities in the 1760s but waned as optical-related entertainment increased. Pictured, The Optical Viewer c. 1794 engraving by Fréderic Cazenave after Louis Léopold Boilly. Mom shows son the Zograscope.

^{Image The British Museum}

---

---

Instead of gazing directly at a print through the lens, the user gazed at the refraction’s reflection in the flat mirror through the curved lens. Pictured directly below, a Zograscope at the bottom of p228 of John Hinton’s Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure, January -May 1752.

1679
SIMON WITGEEST
Witgeest was a member of Dutch conjuring circles and wrote a popular magic book entitled Het nieuwe Toneel der Konsten translated as New Theatre of Arts. The first edition was published in Leiden in 1659.

The book contains sections on magic tricks, painting, etching, and fireworks. Witgeest being a magician, and the Magic Lantern having been thought of as a devil’s tool from its beginnings, the book contains a very interesting illustration on p57 shown directly below.

^{Image Thomas Weynants}

---

The book, with the frontispiece seen below right, also describes the basic principle of the Camera Obscura without illustrating it. References to optical devices are often found in vintage conjuring books however Witgeest did not include a diagram of the camera in Het nieuwe Toneel der Konsten.

One trick often shown would be the technique of smoke projection.

This bizarre looking lantern of Witgeest suggests circular images and clearly shows a chimney, two candles and a lens. I believe the image to be projected might be hidden within the lens housing door. Its thickness might hold several.

The book also describes the Camera Obscura without illustration.

---

---

1679
THE CINEMA IN PRINTED PLAYING CARDS
Watch an historical bio-pic while you play cards. British subjects were able to in 1679. Seventy-four years after the Gunpowder Plot was uncovered, the events were put into cinematic form in printed playing cards.

In 1679 an unknown printer produced four separate vignettes of historical incidents which all had religious motive as the basis for the dramatic events. These happenings were then put into sequential order telling the events from beginning to end just like a movie. Immediately below you see cards 11, 12 and 13 in the series.

The final reel, if you will.

The complete pack of 52 cards depicted four separate plots:
🎞️ the first Spanish Armada (1588)
🎞️ William Parry’s Plot (1582-1585)
🎞️ the Gunpowder Plot (1605) [Cards 7 and 8 below]
🎞️ the Popish Plot (1678)

The backs of the cards were plain, and the front images were etchings.

---

---

The description for each card is written at the bottom and in the English of the times. Inter titles! Close up below of cards 12 and 13.

The material for the cards was called pasteboard. The images were etchings, and the dimension of each card was 3.5 inches tall by 2.12 wide.

These pre cinema playing cards are housed at the British Museum and were bequeathed by Lady Charlotte Schreiber in 1896.

Below are all thirteen cards in the Gunpowder Plot set.

1680
ROBERT HOOKE (1635-1703)
Hooke gave lectures on light to the Royal Society (found in Richard Waller’s Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke, (London, 1705, pp127,128) in which he described his Artificial Eye or cone-shaped Camera Obscura.

Hooke’s cone-shaped Camera Obscura was about five feet in length and light entered through the apex. The viewer looked through the centre hole. The plumb-bob-looking thing at the bottom was likely a handle, or driven into a post as a means of anchoring it when out-of-doors.

LEGEND REFERS TO THE ABOVE IMAGE
The opening (A) held the lens (convex). This shape placed a curved image on the rear screen (BC). The section between BC and DE was not fixed, in that BC could be moved inward allowing a larger or smaller picture. The opening at (H) is for looking in, to see the image.

Robert Hooke gave lectures on light to the Royal Society in 1680. These were published in 1705 by Richard Waller in his work Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke. Here on p127 directly below we see the first of three excerpts from Hooke describing his Artificial Eye Camera Obscura.

Remember that in most cases, you need to replace an f, with an s.

Excerpt 2 of 3, p128 below.

Excerpt 3 of 3.
My theory on the plumb-bob-looking thing pans out as we read Hooke tell us that using a “Ball and Socket underneath” will make this five foot long Camera Obscura cone, more manageable.

---

---

The Raree Show was an exhibition of pictures viewed through a small hole or magnifying glass or convex lens, into a Peep Box operated by a travelling itinerant showman. The Peep Box was carried on the back and set up after arriving in towns and villages. Most Rarees were set up in the village square.

It was a popular form of pre cinema entertainment during the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe.

---

Regular followers of my X channel @RealPreCinema may recall my dispatch of the Galantee So during the same time period. So, what’s the difference you ask? The history of pre cinema, bestowing on us many apparatuses, has the bases covered as it pertains to carrying something on your back.

Read on;

---

Here is a Raree Show with two lassies peeping into the box, from Olive Cooks Movement in Two Dimensions- A Study of the Animated and Projected Pictures Which Preceded the Invention of Cinematography, Hutchinson and Company 1963, p29. Some Rarees were large enough to be set up permanently.

If too big to back-carry, the box would be carried on a cart, or became a more-or-less permanent structure in the town or village for a period of time. Strings in holes along the side allowed the operator/vendor to move the imagery about.

---

The Raree Show was for the street or living room. Most were public exhibitions and hugely popular with children. Beginning in or around 1860 it was called “in imitation of the foreign way of pronouncing rare show” [sic].

The innocent term peep show later on, will take on a more depraved meaning.

---

Like looking into a doll-house-sized cinema. Here is an illustration by Bartolomeo Pinelli of a Raree Show happening in Rome around 1809, taken from Optical Toys, by Basil Harley, Shire Publications, first edition, 1988 on p14.

Once again we see the operator lifting the lid to allow in light.

---

The old Dutch title of a Raree Show was t Fraay Curieus, and referred to the cries “beautiful!!!” (fraai) and “extraordinary!!!” (curieus) with which itinerant performers announced themselves when they arrived in towns and villages.

Loud verbal advertising to announce the Savoyard was here. No different than the town crier’s “hear ye hear ye,” when people ran to hear the news read by the man walking down the street clanging the bell.

And then there’s the knife and scissors sharpener but we won’t go there.

What’s with the squirrel and the bells you ask. More advertising and something to get your attention. Otherwise who wants to go over to a soldier with a box. Notice that once again we see the back opened to let in light.

---

Promenade Promotions presents perhaps one of, or even the only, Raree Show still on earth today called The Raree Man Peep Show.

---

Here is a cute little video that gives you a pretty good idea of what the Raree Show was all about, called Raree Man’s Peepshow produced by Steve Sowden showing as they say, “the last peep show on earth.” It runs three minutes and 55 seconds.

1685
JOHANN ZAHN (1631 – 1707)
This year, Zahn published in Wurzburg Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium (Zahn, J., Wurzburg, 1685-6). In this wondrous book, we find many descriptions and illustrations of both the Camera Obscura and Magic Lantern. Zahn used the lantern for anatomical lectures, illustrated a large workshop Camera Obscura for solar observations using the telescope and scioptric ball.

He further demonstrated the use of mirrors and lenses to erect the image and enlarge and focus it. Zahn also designed several portable Camera Obscuras for drawing using the 45 degree mirror, and used side flaps to shield unwanted light. His Camera Obscuras were the closest thing to what 19th century cameras were.

Zahn gave credit for the Magic Lantern to Kircher and mentions Schott and De Chales in his references. He also suggested the presentation of images under water and proceeded to explain, and stressed the importance of hiding the Magic Lantern out of sight of the audience.

This book also goes on to show how time in the form of a clock can be projected onto a larger screen (remember Mario Bettini?), and how wind direction can be seen by having a connection from the lantern inside, to a wind vane on the roof of the building.

A 17th century weather app.

---

The page directly below from Zahn’s Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium of 1685 shows a drawing by Johannes Zahn of a portable Camera Obscura with side flaps in order to shield unwanted light from the viewer’s vision.

It was considered portable not only because of its size but also its ability to be moved easily from room to room. Notice its roller-wheels.

Zahn foresaw the lantern to project the image on glass which allowed several to view at a time, as opposed to the Camera Obscura which was limited largely to one observer at a time [excepting the room camera] as the Cinema surpassed the Nickelodeon for the same reason.

Here, notice what looks like rolling-ball wheels for portability.

---

Zahn describes and illustrates so many cameras and lanterns in Oculus artificialis teledioptricus sive Telescopium, that he out-does Kircher in his combined editions of Ars Magna.

Pictured are four pages showing Camera Obscuras: pp172, 178, 689, 692.

---

“the projection of images of objects was announced in a wonderful manner by Kircher”

---

The same applies with the Magic Lantern, with too many illustrations to show here. You will have to read the book to truly understand the zealousness he had for this subject. I will try and include more images as they pertain, in later posts.

Pictured below are four more pages from Oculus artificialis teledioptricus sive Telescopium of Zahn Magic Lanterns; pp726, 728, 739, 401.

---

Continuing in our study of Zahn’s work in pre cinema history are his pinhole illustrations. Typically using the cross because of its ability to be easily recognised as upright or inverted, we see these diagrams from Oculus . . . . on pp95, 389.

---

He also suggested the presentation of images under water and proceeded to explain the importance of hiding the Magic Lantern out of sight of the audience, seen directly below, as Kircher did the same in his Ars Magna.

---

This marvelous book also shows how a clock shown in two images below can be projected onto a large screen using two different lanterns.

Smart phone apps casting in 1685.

---

Zahn foresaw the lantern as a projector that could allow several to view at a time, like in a cinema. Below are several more pages from his book.

---

---

LIVE ACTION GOBLET vs ANIME KYLIX
Also in 1685 you will recall that Zahn gave us an illustration of a very interesting Camera Obscura in the shape of a drinking goblet. This design was that of the French mathematician Pierre Herigone, in 1642. Just like a thousand years earlier, you could see a motion picture while you drank, with the Greek Kylix, except now it was live action and not anime.

Herigone wrote Supplementum Cursus Mathematici and in chapter 6, on page 113 he described his goblet Camera Obscura but without any drawing or illustration. Zahn illustrated it in his Oculus, 1702, p696, below.

---

---

READ Pierre Herigone’s Supplementum Cursus Mathematici from 1642 here at Internet Archive and SEE chapter 6, p113 below where he describes his goblet Camera Obscura but without any drawing or illustration.

Perhaps the most prolific writer and illustrator of the camera obscura, Zahn has left us with many different diagrams, illustrations and sketches. A significant component of pre cinema history, and for the most part unknown of, rarely ever mentioned, or forgotten.

---

---

If you remember Shao Ong ….

[ SHAO ONG (c. 121) BC
Documented in the Shih Chi and Chhien Han Shu of the Han period (chapter 28, p24) [Trans., Chavannes, volume 3, p470] is the Shadowplay by the magician called Shao Ong who made the spirit of a dead concubine appear to the Emperor Wu Ti. ] ….

as well as De La Roche, and the Pablius Statius poem The Hair of Earinus. . . “do you only fix your glance upon it and leave your features here. Thus, he spoke and showed the mirror with the image caught therein.”

Then this excerpt from Fénelon’s Une Voyage Suppose will make sense …..

---

---

Image of William Molyneux’s Magic Lantern is pictured below, with a condensing lens before the object. From Molyneux’s Dioptrica Nova, 1692, taken from p677 of Simon Henry Gage and Henry Phelps Gage, Optic Projection, Comstock Publishing, New York, 1914.

---

The illustrations below show a candle as the source of illumination. The object is a cross, upside down in front of the lens (h) in order to give an upright image, opposed to the other way around (the norm in most other illustrations you see of the Magic Lantern (excepting Cheselden and Kircher).

On page 181, table 38, figure 2, Molyneux illustrates his lantern clearly showing a condensing lens. A combination of lenses was used to provide telescopic effects and a long throw. Molyneux’s work is very likely the first English account in scientific terms of this art-science.

---

---

1693-1694
WILHELM HOMBERG (1652-1715)
Homberg was a prominent German natural philosopher, physician, lawyer, and chemist who played a significant role in the transition from alchemy to modern chemistry in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

This member of the Academie Royale des Sciences in Paris conducted numerous studies of light-sensitivity in some silver salts. He noticed that bone dipped in silver nitrate would darken in sunlight, just like paper.

Born in Batavia (modern Jakarta, Indonesia) where his father served in the Dutch East India Company, Homberg later moved to Europe and initially pursued a career in law, studying at Jena and Leipzig.

---

---

Homberg did not however differentiate it (the action of the sun’s light) from the action of heat, as Schulze had. Homberg also discovered leuchtstein from lime, and muriatric acid.

1694
THE HOOKE PICTURE-BOX
ROBERT HOOKE (1635 – 1703)
Hooke describes his “picture-box” in a paper to the Royal Society. Dernham, in 1726 would compile Hooke’s work in Philosophical Experiments and Observations of the Late Eminent Dr. Hooke.

Hooke’s instrument allowed the viewer to observe and draw just about anything, as Hooke said, “take the draught or picture of anything.”  The illustration shows a man with his head inserted in the device.

Although uncomfortable looking, the user could sketch scenes outdoors as it was of course, portable. In fact, Robert Hooke encouraged its use in the travel and tourism industry in England at that time.

On the matter, he wrote;

“The Instrument I mean for this purpose is nothing else but a small Picture-Box much like that which I long since shewed the Society, for Drawing the Picture of a Man, or the like; of the Bigness of the original or of any proportionable Bigness that should be desired, as well bigger as smaller than the Life, which I believe was the first of that kind which was ever made or described by any. And possibly this may be the first of this kind that has been applied to this use.“

---

---

Pictured below is today’s Stedicam. Garrett Brown invented this motion-steadying stabilizer and introduced it to the industry in 1975 through Cinema Products Corporation. What would Hooke think of this if he could see it.

Such a long way we have come. And so much further to go. We’re only in chapter five.

1697
ERHARD WIEGEL (1625-1699)
Jumping ahead some twenty odd years, Wiegel is documented as having projected a Magic Lantern show that projected two animals onto a screen. Little else is known of this supposed event. Here is what I know.

---

This information does come from a highly reputable source, deep-dive researcher and pre cinema historian Deac Rossell of whom I will be referencing many times as we proceed through the centuries.

Pictured directly below is a Pietro della Vecchia portrait of Erhard Weigel from 1649. It’s an oil on canvas and hangs in the Chrysler Museum of Art in Norfolk, Virginia.

1698
THE CABINETS OF CURIOSITIES
The Cabinet of Curiosities was the forefather of the contemporary museum and, as the name implies, a veritable wonderland. Many of Europe’s most famous museums grew out of powerful monarchs cabinets. A distinct way of gathering and organising collections emerged in 16th and 17th century Europe. This was the kunst – or wunderkammer, which literally means “art- or wonder-room,” or, as it is more commonly called in English, “cabinet of curiosities.”

The cabinet was also known as a galleria, studiolo, museo, or stanzino, in southern Italy.

Merchants, nobles, scholars, and other members of the elite scientific world built their own cabinets packed with all kind of wonders. Unlike museums, which have a scientific foundation, the cabinet’s primary goal was to gather collections of… curiosities. In terms of physics and especially optics, this meant anything optical including the lantern and camera. The rarity of the things in a cabinet was often the sole thing that tied them together. The cabinet was a location where anything might go, from scientific gadgets to antiquities, and from exotic stuffed creatures to artworks, as long as it had the requisite wow factor.

And, as the Magic Lantern and Camera Obscura expanded and grew in knowledge and popularity, the wow factor was there.

For instance, below is an engraving for Academy of Sciences & Fine Arts by Sébastien Le Clerc. Commissioned to draw a host of scientists, Le Clerc included various instruments including a Magic Lantern seen in the circular inset as only one of many curiosities.

---

A wunderkammer was frequently used to create an encyclopedic duplicate of the world. The four seasons, the months of the year, the continents, and even the relationship between man and god were all represented by artifacts. Science, philosophy, theology, and popular imagination collaborated harmoniously in the wunderkammer to animate the collector’s worldviews.

Below is a rendition by Le Clerc of his own personal cabinet filled with objects he collected, demonstrating physics to scientists who came to visit him. This drawing by Le Clerc around 1710-1712 is housed in the British Museum. Notice the Camera Obscura in the circular inset.

---

---

The Italian scientist Giambattista Della Porta, one of the very first to be interested in optical phenomena, set up in his house in Murano, near Venice, a cabinet filled with curiosities which he showed to all the scholars who came to meet him. Jean-Antoine Nollet, both of whom I have referenced, was another.

---

In the cities of Europe, people collected a variety of instruments and natural curiosities, and attempted experiments. In 1742, Paris had 17 natural history cabinets; 21 in 1757; 61 in 1780. This series of 4 identified physics cabinets shows the curiosities in circular inset.

#1

Some of these Cabinets of Curiosities contained real laboratories in which physicists exhibited all the new applications of science, in particular those which allow the most magical effects: magnetism, electricity, optics, the properties of water, air and invisible inks.

#2

In the 17th century, Europe offered scientists a political climate favourable to the study of science and mathematics. Research moved from the era of speculation to that of demonstrated inventions, as evidenced by René Descartes’s Discourse on Method.

#3

Academies of Sciences were created in various European capitals: the Académie dei Lincei in Rome in 1603, The Royal Society in London, 1645, the Académie del Cimento in Florence in 1657 and the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris in 1666.

#4

It goes without saying, our first museum was the home.

The year 1683 is documented as the year the 1st true museum was founded: University of Oxford– the Ashmolean Museum. Great museums such as the Uffizi Gallery, Louvre, and British Museum were all founded in the 18th century.

---

These cabinets reflected the era’s fascination with discovery, exploration, and the natural world, serving as both personal studies and social displays. By the 18th century, they grew into more systematic museum collections as scientific classification became prominent.

N.B. Interestingly, in three of the four physics Cabinets of Curiosities, images presented in my last four posts above (#1, #2, #3), we find each time, a Jules Duboscq projection lantern, of which I will be speaking of in the chapters to come. Duboscq is a major player in pre cinema.

---

TOP
CHAPTER SIX

Welcome	About	Introduction	Chapter One beginning of time – 999 AD
Chapter Two 1000 AD – 1399	Chapter Three 1400 – 1599	Chapter Four 1600 – 1649	Chapter Five 1650 – 1699
Chapter Six 1700 – 1749	Chapter Seven 1750 – 1799	Chapter Eight 1800 – 1819	Chapter Nine 1820 – 1829
Chapter Ten 1830 – 1839	Chapter Eleven 1840 – 1849	Chapter Twelve 1850 – 1859	Chapter Thirteen 1860 – 1869
Chapter Fourteen 1870 – 1879	Chapter Fifteen 1880 – 1884	Chapter Sixteen 1885 – 1889	Chapter Seventeen 1890 – 1894
Chapter Eighteen 1895 – 1899	Chapter Nineteen 1900 + post cinema	Chapter Twenty 1911 +	Copyright
HOTDOC Internet Archive Channel	HOTDOC X Channel	HOTDOC You Tube Channel

Powered by planetelcommunications

© 1990 – 2025

About

Email