Redeeming the Life of Robert Hooke

Redeeming the Life of Robert Hooke The Man who knew too much: The strange and Innovative life of Robert Hooke 1635 – 1703 by Stephen Inwood is an attempt to redeem the life of Robert Hooke. Many of us learnt of Robert Hooke through his Hooke’s Law which states that the extension of a spring is proportional to the weight that is hung from it. The reputation of Robert Hooke that has come down through history is of a querulous man who regularly complained that he was not given credit for what he had achieved and claimed the credit for that many of the discoveries that other scientist made. Stephen Inwood sets out to show that there was more to Robert Hooke than these two positions would suggest. It has to be said that he book does succeed in doing this. We read of a man who was interested in a whole range of issues and who put forward ideas that opened up new possibilities. Among the the many roles that he played was as assistant to Robert Boyle, the sceptical chemist; curator of experiments, fellow, Secretary, lecturer,at different times, at the Royal Society which was founded in 1660; wrote Micrgraphia , an exposition of his scientific ideas which contained some superb drawings of things that he had seen under the microscope; Professor of Geometry at Gresham College where he regularly gave the Cutler lectures; appointed as City Surveyor after fire had destroyed large parts of the City of London, assistant to Christopher Wren in building many London churches and later went on to be an Architect in his own right, seeing many buildings through from design to completion, able to negotiate with and oversee the work of craftsmen; invented and improve many other scientific instruments especially astronomical and surveying equipment; lectured upon fossils and the changing shape of the earth. But we also read of a many who could be difficult, frustrating and infuriating. One of his strengths was that he saw the need to relate theory and practice. He was able to talk to craftsmen on their own terms and to relate to them and their work. He was far from the loner that he is often depicted having a large number of friend and acquaintances, many of them quite influential. He also had a knack of falling out with people, often over matters where he felt they had taken his ideas and developed them claiming priority which should have been acknowledge as his. The problem with Hooke and his discoveries and ideas is that he would float ideas but not develop them. He shared with many scientists, natural philosophers as they were then known, an over concern for priority. Often they would have an idea which they wished to further develop, they therefore kept their ideas to themselves, or announced it in code, When another person later came up with a similar idea they would then claim that they had had that idea much earlier. Many of the ideas that Hooke floated were ignored at the the time but much later set forth as entirely new ideas by a new generation of scientists. It is hard to say that Hooke should be credited with the ideas because floating an idea is not the same as rigorously proving the truth of the idea. The most glaring example of this comes with the bitter dispute between Hooke and Isaac Newton over the question of celestial motion. It is quite possible that Newton was helped towards his major work, Principia, by statements of Hooke, but, as Stephen Inwood makes very clear nothing can take away from the excellence of Newton’s work nor from the fact that Isaac Newton was one of the greatest Mathematicians. His oft quoted remark that ‘if I have seen further than any man it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants’ is a very accurate statement, even though Inwood doubts his sincerity in relation to Hooke. This episode does bring to attention a key fact about science. When I was studying Non Euclidean Geometry, I came across this advice from Wolfgang Bolyai to his son Johann Bolyai “many things have an epoch in which they are found at the same time in several places, just as violets appear on every side in spring. Also every scientific struggle is just a serious war,in which I cannot say when peace will arrive. Thus we ought to conquer when we are able, since the advantage is always to the firstcomer.” We may regret that science is seen this way and there are many occasions in which the due deserts of scientists has not been given. The moral has to be that being open and sharing scientific developments is in the best interests of humanity and secrecy and concealment is contrary to those interests. The book is not without its flaws. It is, like its subject Robert Hooke, at times infuriating and frustrating. It wanders widely and contains a lot of information that I found unnecessary. In his desire to give a complete picture of the man he has contained matters relating to his personal life which were to my mind unnecessary. What he does manage to do is to give a clear picture of the scientific times in which Robert Hooke lived. We meet many people whom those with a passing knowledge of science are familiar with. Hooke could at times misjudge and unfairly treat others as he was undoubtedly mistreated. Henry Oldenburg being the most obvious example. The two people who come out of the book with their reputation enhanced, in my view are Robert Boyle and Christopher Wren. Christopher Wren will for ever be associated with the rebuilding of the City of London after the great fire. However, Stephen Inwood shows a Christopher Wren who had a much wider level of accomplishment than simply an architect. He was also, among other things an accomplished Mathematician. He was also an ‘elder statesman who had a balanced approach to life and activities which provided a corrective to some of the more belligerent approaches. Central to the life of Robert Hooke throughout his life was the Royal Society. Stephen Inwood provides an interesting insight to the workings of the Society. Many of the struggles that plagued Hooke’s life came from his relations with the Society. The picture that is presented of the Society does reflect what I see as the class division that existed within the Society at that time. At the extremes within the Society were two distinct groups, the Gentlemanly aristocrats who saw the Society and Natural Philosophy as a hobby of a past time to keep themselves entertained. This was shown in their desire at the meetings for novelty, the spectacular and excitement. At the other extreme was the serious scientist who saw science as a way of improving life through practical experiments leading to theoretical discoveries and the development of theoretical insights into practical applications. Hooke clearly was part of the latter group. He was a man of ideas but with the aim of providing instrument which would aid practitioners and further knowledge. His frustration came from the fact that so many of those of influence within the society did not understand him. The sad thing to relate is that this attitude persisted into the next century as set out in the account of the life of Charles Hutton in the book by Benjamin Wardhaugh ‘Gunpowder and Geometry: The Life of Charles Hutton, Pit Boy, Mathematician and Scientific Rebel’. There are still elements of this division even in modern politics where science and more especially engineering are still underrated in comparison with those whose background is in more classical studies and financial affairs/ In closing, I believe that it is worth persevering in the reading of this book. Sift out the gems that are contained within it , move on quickly over the more tedious parts, and look for the god in the life of Robert Hooke and forgive him foe the resentments that mark his life. In his life he was not given the recognition that he deserved but we should not make that mistake. The person, whom I believe knew him best, Christopher Wren, knew his qualities, as did many others, and took from him what was best. Scribar 01.03.23