As with many another inventor, Kircher received little praise and much blame for his invention of the magic lantern. Charges of being in league with the devil to achieve the wondrous images on the screen almost broke his spirit. Though his device was widely pirated in Europe without acknowledgement of the inventor, before Kircher’s death he was able to take some satisfaction from the fact that his projector was no longer viewed as “black magic” but as a great boon for mankind. Had he lived longer he would have again been saddened as others claimed the magic lantern as their own. At this later day the name of Kircher was known only to a few scholars although the magic lantern audiences could be numbered in the many thousands.

In the first half century after the invention of the magic lantern projector, four men, in addition to Kircher himself, made its scientific principles and construction widely known. They were a curious group: Gaspar Schott, a protégé of Kircher; Claude Milliet de Chales, a French priest and military expert; Johann Zahn German writer; and William Molyneux, an Irish patriot, teacher and scientist.

Gaspar Schott was the best known of Kircher’s pupils who helped to awaken scientific interest in Europe. He was born at Königshofen, Bohemia, in 1608. He entered the Jesuit Order at the age of 19. Like Kircher, his senior by six years, Schott was compelled to flee the disorders in Germany and continue his studies abroad. For his courses in philosophy and theology Schott went to Sicily. Later he studied under Kircher at the Roman College. From his contact with Kircher, Schott had developed a great interest in scientific matters and mathematics. He conducted research and wrote at Augsburg until his death in 1666. Schott’s books were once very popular. Their subjects ranged from extracts of the diaries kept by Kircher on his various scientific travels to mathematical text books and even a study on the source of the river Nile. So far as the story of magic shadows goes, Schott’s most valuable book was the Magia Universalis Naturæ et Artis. “Wonders of Universal Nature and Art,” published at Würzburg in 1658, with a second edition in 1674.

Schott described every type of magic lantern, basing his remarks, of course, on the work of Kircher. The projection apparatus described by him was better than that of the master, Kircher. Schott described lanterns with and without lenses, and covered points of practical use as well as the theory.

The age-old Burning Glasses of Archimedes were studied by Schott, who knew about the various kinds of images, mirrors, and the focal length and its importance in producing sharp pictures on the screen. A refinement in the telescope was also explained.

Schott was probably the first man to write about, and study with the magic lantern, optical illusions caused by a rapidly revolving wheel, including the appearance of distorted figures. It was this same study, carried on almost two hundred years later in England, France and Belgium, that was to result in the first real motion pictures. In ideas Schott outran the limitations of the physical apparatus available at the time, as did Kircher himself.

Kircher had been asked by Schott to write the foreword to his book. But Kircher was too busy with other works. (It is barely possible that he was jealous of the growing fame of his former pupil; or, more likely, that he was unwilling to appear in print at that time on the subject which had so much contributed to his troubles.) Nicholas Mohr, who did write the introduction, pointed out that Schott had been carrying on the work of Kircher.

Schott discussed the various details of the magic lantern projector in scientific terms. He was a pure scientist without the dash of showmanship which at once distinguished Kircher and probably helped to cause him difficulty with his “enemies.” Schott described how “to construct the Kircher Catoptric Machine.” This was the first coupling of Kircher’s own name with the magic lantern. But people preferred Kircher’s appellation of “magic lantern.” And so his own name did not grow into the language to stand for the device he invented.

About fifteen years after Schott’s book appeared and nearly thirty years after the first description of the magic lantern by Kircher in his Great Art of light and Shadow, the first prominent Frenchman in the history of the magic shadows made a contribution by improving some details of the projector.

In keeping with what has not been an infrequent practice amongst French historians in claiming inventions for Frenchmen, it has been held that Claude François Milliet de Chales, and not Athanasius Kircher, invented the magic lantern. Milliet de Chales was a talented man but, as he himself clearly wrote, he did not invent the magic lantern. What happened was that de Chales saw one exhibited in Lyons, where he was stationed, and then devised some improvements.

De Chales was much too young to have invented the magic lantern, as he was born at Chambéry in 1621. He entered the Jesuits in 1636 and after his studies spent some time in missionary work in Turkey. While de Chales was on the missions, Kircher had already demonstrated the magic lantern at Rome.

Father de Chales had an interesting career. Upon his return from missionary work he became a professor of humanities and rhetoric. Later his attention was turned to things scientific. Louis XIV made him professor of hydrography at Marseilles and there de Chales was able to devote much time to navigation and to other arts which would have a military application. De Chales later taught mathematics and theology, eventually becoming rector of Chambéry. He died in Turin in 1678.

De Chales’ monumental work is Cursus seu Mundus Mathematicus, “The Mathematical World,” written in 1674. An edition, edited from the author’s reviewed manuscript, by Amati Varcin, S. J., was published at Lyons in 1690, 12 years after de Chales’ death. One section was devoted to optics. De Chales studied the eye and knew that the image is upside down on the retina. He investigated other vision problems, including angular vision and vision at long range, considered binocular vision and the images formed by each eye. He devised satisfactory lenses and spectacles for both far and near-sighted persons. (The original name for near-sightedness—“Myopia”—came down from Aristotle.) De Chales experimented with light and dark colored objects and gave consideration to why we see better with two eyes than one. He noted that the eye actually sees color and light and not objects and movement—a fact upon which the whole motion picture process is based. He pointed out that the ship appears to stand still and the shore moves to an observer aboard. He also studied the nature of color and the laws of light. De Chales even attempted three dimension projection! Even now many efforts are being made to achieve “three dimension” motion pictures without the use of special glasses or other viewing devices for the spectators.

De Chales considered plane and curved mirrors, improving the design of the old camera lucida of Alberti by introducing a mirror. He devised a simple searchlight to improve the projection of images, in a system similar to Kircher’s design for the first magic lantern, but as it had a stronger light source it was shown how letters, bright enough to read, could be projected a great distance.

De Chales narrated how fires could be set with the two lens system—as the old Burning Glasses of Archimedes. He was a practical man as well as an ingenious one and included details on how to make lenses. Other studies included consideration of color reflection, a telescope with two convex lenses, an attempt to make binoculars and even an experiment with prisms, laying some of the groundwork for Newton.

De Chales wrote that for many things this method of projection—direct with a strong light source—was “the best and most certain.” Doubtless he was right, considering available means. He also pointed out the military uses of the projector and other mirror-lens devices. Today in enemy waters or where hostile sea or aircraft are expected and a “radio silence” must be maintained—ships and planes must use optical signaling devices and de Chales was the first to consider carefully this subject.

De Chales’ most important refinement in the projector was the introduction of a two-lens projection system.

He described in his book how the magic lantern first came to his attention. “We have seen here at Lyons a dioptric machine, called a magic lantern. Rays of light are projected through a tube for a distance of ten or twelve feet. An enlarged image, about four feet in diameter, is shown in all its colors.” The effect was considered wonderful, according to de Chales. He noted, however, that a convex lens was used but pointed out that it would be better to use a double lens “as he demonstrated.” De Chales did not discard the concave mirror, used as the light collector on almost all types of projectors from Kircher’s to those of the present day.

In a subsequent chapter de Chales gave more information on this subject. “As I have indicated in the preceding chapter a learned Dane” (very likely the same Walgenstein of whom Kircher wrote as a popularizer of his lantern projector) “came to Lyons in the year 1655.” De Chales continued, “This Dane was well versed in optics and among other things showed a lantern.” De Chales again noted how he had developed an improvement, using two lenses, which made possible a projection to the then amazing distance of 20 feet. The present projection “throw” at the Radio City Music Hall, Rockefeller Center, New York, is approximately 200 feet.

In addition to optics and many other fields of study, de Chales was interested in navigation. He wrote a book, probably on the order of the King’s general staff, The Art of Navigation demonstrated by principle and proved by many observations drawn from practical experience. He devised a paddle-wheel ship that would go against the current, “without sails, without oars and without the traction of any animal”—surely a military weapon! His most important military work was The Art of Fortifying and Defending and Attacking according to the French, Dutch, Italian and Spanish Methods.

De Chales mentioned in his writings Alhazen, Witelo and other ancient authorities. He must have read the first edition of Kircher’s book and also Gaspar Schott’s before his own was written. However, de Chales made a definite improvement with his lens system which is essentially the modern one. Also, his work helped to popularize and extend the art and science of light and shadow. He was another strange man in this complex story—a missionary, a teacher and a military expert.

Johann Zahn in Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus sive Telescopium, “The Artificial Telescopic Eye or Telescope,” published at Nuremberg in 1685 and 1702, outlined a better lens system for the magic lantern and described many applications, including false representations to create wonder and fear. One of Zahn’s teachers was Jerome Langenmantel, the editor of Kircher’s autobiography, so the link with Kircher is close and direct.

Zahn considered the eye, vision and light, basing his work on earlier writers. It was noted that Kircher, and his aide Schemer, used a system—probably the natural camera—to observe the sun at Rome in 1635. He also described telescopes and microscopes and a device which was a forerunner in the Stereoscope.

In his section on the magic lantern, Zahn acknowledges his debt to Kircher, referring to Kircher’s book and to Schott’s saying “the projection of images of objects was announced in a wonderful manner by Kircher.” He also knew de Chales’ work. But he showed that an improvement could be made.

Zahn showed a complete magic lantern, or Thaumaturga Lantern (names originated by Kircher) or Megalographica Lantern (Great-writing), because even little figures and images can appear life-like in size. The system was complete: reflecting mirror to focus the light, a lamp as the light source and two projection lenses forming the projection system.

Zahn wrote, “Very great wonders are presented and set forth in the magic lantern including the projection of light and curious images.” He proves himself a showman by saying the purpose is to create “the greatest admiration and enjoyment of those looking on.”

The regular magic lantern was, he said, “already well known.” He developed some very ingenious improvements, including table model projectors which set the pattern right to the end of the 19th century. All that was later added was improved light sources including, finally, electric light. (Illustrations facing page 64.)

Zahn for his theatre shows described how images could be projected even under water. He stressed the importance of concealing the projector in a separate room so that the audience would not know the source of the magical vision.

In one model of the magic lantern Zahn explained how the glass slides could be mounted on a circular disk which could be revolved in front of the magic lantern lens. In other words, he took the disk shown by Kircher and combined it with Kircher’s projector. But Zahn’s modification was the dominant pattern used by later experimenters, just before the dawn of the motion picture as we know it. The first projector to show “motion pictures” from hand-drawn slides was invented about 1851 by Franz von Uchatius and looked very similar to this model of Zahn.

Zahn had also many curious applications, including the use of the magic lantern to tell time or rather to project the correct time on a great “clock” on the wall. Another application was the use of the lantern, connected with a wind vane atop the structure to show the direction the wind was blowing at the particular instant. (Illustration facing page 65.)

J. Kunckelius, who wrote on the Glass Art, is credited by Zahn with developing a good ink or paint to be used on the glass for the magic lantern slides. This information was passed on by him to his readers. From Kircher’s day until the invention of film and its use in photography in the latter part of the 19th century, glass slides formed the physical picture supports for practically every kind of a magic shadow show.

Kircher’s magic lantern was established on a scientific basis in the English-speaking world by the writing of William Molyneux, a citizen of Dublin. Molyneux became an Irish patriot by taking a stand against the contended right of the English Parliament to rule Irishmen. He was a leader in the constitutional struggle for Irish autonomy in the early part of the 18th century.

Molyneux, a professor at Trinity College, Dublin, included his treatment of the magic lantern in his Dioptrica Nova, which the censor passed on June 4, 1690 with the note, “I think this book is fit to be printed.” But it was not published until two years later. Molyneux, as other pioneers in this art-science, had his period of exile. He wrote in Dioptrica Nova, “the present distractions of our miserable country have separated me and my books.”

In the introduction Molyneux pointed out that up to then there was nothing written in the English language on that part of mathematics and, he said, “I am sure there are many ingenious Heads, great Geometers, and Masters in Mathematics, who are not so well skilled in Latin.” And certainly Molyneux was right, for the use of the modern languages was expanding constantly in that period.

Molyneux had a low regard for Zahn, whom he called “a blind transcriber from others” and asserted that he copied the errors of de Chales.

An early section of the book was “On the Representation of outward objects in a Dark Chamber; by a Convex Glass.” This was a modified version of the natural camera, first set down carefully by da Vinci and dating back to Roger Bacon.

Molyneux devoted a whole section to “The Explication of the Magick Lantern, sometimes called Lanterna Megalographica” (that last was one of the names Kircher gave to it). Molyneux scientifically described a good model featuring a metal lantern and adjustable lenses. He explained that the pictures to be shown were painted with transparent colors on pieces of thin glass which were inverted and placed in the projector. His comment on the type of picture is entertaining: “This is usually some Ludicrous or frightful Representation, the more to divert the Spectators.” “Horror” pictures—and comedies—were born centuries before Hollywood.

Also discussed were focusing lenses, glass and concave mirrors, adjustments in the picture focus, the throw from projector to the screen.

However, Molyneux wished to keep strictly on the scientific and scholarly side saying, “As to the Mechanick Contrivances of this Lantern, the most Convenient Proportion of the Glasse, etc. this is so ordinary amongst the common Glass Grinders that ’tis needless to insist further thereon in this place. ’Tis sufficient to me that I have explained the theory thereof.”

At the end of the volume there was an advertisement—it was noted that all the instruments mentioned “are made and sold by John Yarwell at the Archimedes and Three Golden Prospects, near the great North Door in St. Paul’s Church-Yard: London.” This makes John Yarwell the first recorded commercial dealer in the magic shadow science.

In addition to Schott, Milliet de Chales, Zahn and Molyneux, many travelling showmen such as Walgenstein, the Dane, introduced the magic lantern and its magic shadow shows in great cities and little hamlets of Europe. Some were professional entertainers, accepting the projector as a new device; others were the “vagabonds and imposters,” of the type condemned by Kircher. This group recognized no law and copied and appropriated the magic lantern projector whenever opportunity presented itself. There was no copyright or other protection to restrain them. By the early part of the 18th Century the magic lantern was commonplace and many men were skilled in its use.