Garnier & Hollis then draw a wrong conclusion from Horologium (September 1658)(Fig. 3). Huygens writes in his concluding speech about the uniformity and the firmness of the pendulum.

Fig 3. Horologium

The translation(7 from Latin is as follows:

‘Much that I could add to this, I leave to the ingenuity of the manufacturers, who, once they have understood my invention, can easily find out how it can be applied to the different types of movements and also to those that have been made according to the old system’.

Huygens concludes his Horologium with the remark that his invention will be further developed and that manufacturers (among others clockmakers) will accomplish this.

Huygens also states, with the then current insight, the existing balance/foliot movements are easily converted to a pendulum. Huygens made this statement more than a year and a half after his invention, after many pendulum clocks had already been produced. Garnier & Hollis mistakenly see this as the evidence that several people were involved during the experimental phase of the pendulum clock (early 1657).

Here the story can actually stop, but we will take you into some other curious next steps.

Reference is made to a publication by Sebastian Whitestone stating that Thuret was the clockmaker helping Huygens with the experimental pendulum clocks in early 1657. (8

However, Thuret only comes into the picture in the Oeuvres Complètes of Huygens from 1662 onwards. Up till now, no document has shown Huygens knew Thuret before this date, let alone they were working together during the early phase of the pendulum clock.

Probably, the confusion arose because the editor of Oeuvres Complètes, suggests in the margin of a letter from Huygens to Cha<>pelain of 20 August 1659, , Thuret may be meant by the word 'he'. Unfortunately, the Oeuvres Complètes do not show the basis for this suggestion. Nor have we been able to find anything in this regard elsewhere.do not show the basis for this suggestion. Nor have we been able to find anything in this regard elsewhere.

We do know some still existing wall clocks with long pendulum signed by Thuret.(9

On the basis of various characteristics of both case and movement, these clocks need to be dated much later than 1657.

Fig. 4 
Much later than 1657.
Weight driven long pendulum
wall clock by Isaac Thuret á Paris

Garnier & Hollis then return to September 1657 to explain the new major discovery by quoting the Coster-Fromanteel agreement. The following sentence appears in the Coster-Fromanteel contract

soo heeft hij Coster belooft hetselve werck dat hij Fromanteel sal maecken I (ende het secreet daerinne bestaende), hem voor den voorsz. geexpereerden tijt te openbaeren, mits dat de wercken die bij hem Fromanteel hem op conditien hiervooren verhaelt sullen sijn gemaeckt hij Coster voor de voorbedongen prijs aen sich belooft sal mogen ende moeten behouden.(10

This is translated to:

... Further so has he Coster promised to reveal the same work that he Fromanteel will make (and the secret therein existing) to him before the aforementioned expired time, provided

that the works which by him Fromanteel on conditions aforementioned will have been made, he Coster for the stipulated price will be allowed and obliged to keep.(11

Or in plain English: Coster will tell Fromanteel the secret that is in the (pendulum) movement and Coster will also take the manufactured movements for the pre-agreed price.

The handwriting of notary Josua de Putter is not always clear and his commas and other punctuation marks sometimes differ. However, Garnier & Hollis see two punctuation marks as extra parenthesis and the text according to Garnier & Hollis gets a completely different meaning (Fig. 5). The new sentence now becomes (see new brackets) as follows:

soo heeft hij Coster belooft hetselve werck dat hij Fromanteel sal maecken ((ende het secreet daerinne bestaende), hem voor den voorsz. geexpereerden tijt te openbaeren) mits dat de wercken die bij hem Fromanteel op conditien hiervooren verhaelt sullen sijn gemaeckt hij Coster voor de voorbedongen prijs aen sich belooft sal mogen ende moeten behouden.

Which then suddenly is translated to:

... furthermore during the aforementioned time so has he Coster contracted the same work that he Fromanteel will make - (and the secret incorporated therein) him to explain before

the aforementioned expired time - provided that the works which by him Fromanteel on conditions previously cited shall be made the same he Coster for the pre-stipulated price to himself promised will be allowed and obliged to keep...(12

So we see a larger part of the sentence in brackets. In this Garnier & Hollis see proof that Coster did not tell the secret to Fromanteel, but the other way around: Fromanteel taught Coster how to make a pendulum clock!

Fig. 5

We, and various experts, once again have looked at the meaning of this new sentence structure and into the scope of the entire agreement. Unanimously we come to the conclusion that this new theory, in which punctuation marks are seen as extra brackets, (fig. 5) does not result in any change in the meaning of the text. In no way it is comprehensible or possible to follow the conclusions of Garnier & Hollis.

  FACT FINDING

The tales on the new Fromanteel story are based on far-fetched assumptions and theories. It actually entails a recommendation to investigate in the future on the basis of facts laid down in dated deeds and to take note of the 17^th century Dutch manuscripts, the use of language and the course of events at 17^th century notaries.

Of course one can put forward ideas and thoughts at certain moments, but when the authors think to have made great discoveries, as is the case with Innovation & Collaboration, they will have to come better prepared than bring a theory built on quicksand.

  TWO G's

On the occasion of the exhibition Innovation & Collaboration, Dr. John C. Taylor published and commented a facsimile edition of the ‘Coster-Fromanteel contract’.(13

The facsimile looks beautiful and well cared for; clearly, a lot of attention has been paid to this, as well as to the contents of the contract itself. The document has no less than 67 notes with comments. This enormous number alone already suggests the author is not accustomed to reading seventeenth-century Dutch notarial protocols, let alone interpreting them. This is immediately apparent for paragraph 1]. The author sees two lines in the top left hand corner, drawn through the original text. That's right, but they are not just lines or erasures. This are two G's indicating two copies, two neat copies, have been made of this deed, which may or may not have been certified by the notary.
 

fig. 6  Two G's in the top left corner

 

fig. 7  One G in the top left corner

 NOTARIAL PRACTISE

This clarifies point I of the introduction. Here the author states, according to the authority of Prof. Lisa Jardin, that no legal system would have such a sloppy document filed.
However, this was common in 17^th century Holland. And where were they archived? At the Court of Holland. After all, this body admitted the notaries in Holland. So the archives were in custody with the State. And how did they end up at the municipality of The Hague? We quote from the introduction of the inventory of the notarial archive in The Hague:

‘Pursuant to the authority from the Royal Decree of 23 August 1907 (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees no. 237), given to municipalities, that meet certain conditions, to keep the archives of the notaries, who have had their place of employment within those municipalities, from the central government in custody, on November 1910, the municipality of The Hague received all archives of notaries who had resided at its territory in the years 1597-1811 at its request on loan.’ (II

This is just an aside, for a better understanding of the author, who asks himself in note 9 ‘How this contract can be viewed as draft minutes and where the protocol is stored remains unclear’. On the contrary, that is as clear as daylight.
Besides, in contrast to nowadays, notarial deeds were not always drawn up at a chic notary office. Also changes in the text were not initialled as they are today. A lot of these procedures even happened in the pub. The world really looked a lot different in the 17^th century.

   READING ERRORS

Next to mistakes due to lack of historical knowledge, there are also reading errors. The author is forced to make use of an English translation, where the danger is that there are differences in nuance or even differences in meaning. An example: in point K of the introduction, the author says:

 ‘The contract does not spell out normal issues which are taken for granted; for example, the cost of John’s travel to The Hague is paid by John: Salomon will provide John’s board and lodging. So why are beer, fire and light mentioned if they were normally supplied by masters to their workers?’

Indeed, the agreement does not include things that are normal. But what was normal back then? That really was not fixed. Subsequently the author claims that Salomon would provide John ‘board and lodgings’. But that is not what it says. It does only say that Coster will

 ‘indemnify and defray Fromanteel (usually to put synonyms in succession with beer, fire and light’   (III;

so he will provide him with beer, heating and light to be able to do his work. This also means Coster does not provide him with accommodations and meals. So, Fromanteel stays/sleeps elsewhere.

   HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE

But there is more, maybe even more serious. Let us again limit ourselves to some examples, because there are a lot of mistakes and there is no room to cover everything.
Dr. John C. Taylor, an entrepreneur and inventor, who has registered more than 400 patents worldwide, states he has never yet lost a lawsuit about a patent worldwide. Truly a formidable achievement that certainly commands respect. But this look-and-see statement suggests that he also has knowledge of patent law and contracts in 17^th century Holland.
This is nothing more than a suggestion, because apparently he does not have that knowledge. He looks at 17^th century Holland through biased 20^th and 21^st century international glasses.
An important example of this is the introduction of the necessary existence of a Heads of Agreement.

Quote: ‘Parties coming for a lawyer usually have at the very least a Heads of Agreement worked out between them, together with a wish to compromise to some degree to achieve a final Agreement’.(14

That may be customary nowadays, but was this so in the 17^th century? The author states it is very common - ‘at the very least’ - so he does assume it was so at the time. In this way he’s working towards a larger role of Fromanteel.
What did the authors want to achieve with their entire exercise? They wanted to show that a normal agreement of employment between Coster and Fromanteel is in fact a learning agreement between Fromanteel and Coster, i.e. a 180 degrees rotation of roles, together with a change in the value of the agreement itself. In our opinion the authors have not succeeded. Too few arguments have been put forward for this radical change, and at the same time the authors have disqualified themselves by showing that they have no knowledge of 17^th century notarial practice in Holland.

As they are unable to read archival documents, they for instance would have done themselves and all readers a favour to have first been informed by Prof. Dr. Brugmans, Professor of General History. He more than a century ago published a collection of 180 work and student agreements from the Hague protocols. (15

These very quickly show that the world then did not look as unambiguous and tightly organised as the authors suggest.

  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

March 2019, Copyright:

(This article is subject to ongoing revisions.)

  LINKS

Chr. Huygens' Œuvres Complètes. (pdf)

Coster Fromanteel contract.

Archive research on Salomon Coster.

Chr. Huygens Horologium 1658. (pdf)