Robert Hooke: The Leonardo of EnglandWithout a doubt, Robert Hooke was one of the greatest minds in British history. His scientific contributions spanned physics,astronomy, horology, microscopy, paleontology, and even architecture. And yet, he is nowhere near as well-knowntoday as his peers. The Royal Society believes that Hooke’sscientific career can be split into three parts. First were the early years when Hooke hadthe inquisitive mind and the ambitions necessary to become a great scientist. Then came the apex of his profession aroundthe time of the Great Fire of London in 1666. His architectural work redesigning and reconstructingmany buildings devastated by the fire brought him great wealth. And, lastly, there is the third stage of Hooke’slife where bitterness and rivalries with other scientists overshadowed his contributionsand ensured that he became a footnote of history. But Robert Hooke wasn’t forgotten completelyand today we take a look at the man sometimes described as the “Leonardo da Vinci of England.” Early LifeRobert Hooke was born on July 28 (or July 18, going by the Old Style British calendar),1635, in the village of Freshwater on the Isle of Wight, the youngest of four childrento John Hooke and Cecily Gyles. For the first part of his life, Hooke wasa frail and weak child and his parents had little hope that he would survive. Even so, his father took the time to providehim with an education. John Hooke was a priest with the Church ofEngland at Freshwater’s Church of All Saints. He had two or three brothers who were alsoministers and expected young Robert to follow in their footsteps. From an early age, Robert Hooke showed hisfamily that he had other interests. He was fascinated with mechanical devicesand toys and enjoyed taking them apart and putting them back together again. Still a child, Hooke built a ship about ayard long which had proper rigging and could sail and even had some small guns that wouldfire. On another occasion, he completely disassembledan old brass clock to see how it worked and created a functioning replica out of wood. Also during childhood, Hooke picked up anotherinterest that would serve him well in life - drawing. The story comes to us courtesy of the bookBrief Lives by 17th century writer and natural philosopher John Aubrey, one of the main sourcesfor Hooke’s early years. A painter named John Hoskyns came to Freshwaterto draw pictures for an unspecified nobleman. Young Hooke saw him in action and wanted togive it a shot. He did not have the right supplies so he hadto improvise. Robert collected chalk, coal, and a red pigmentcalled ruddle, ground them together and placed the mixture on a wooden platter. He then took a pencil and began copying thepictures that the family had around the house. EducationEven though it became clear that Robert would not go down the path of the church like hisfather and uncles, John Hooke still wanted to ensure that his son had the means to pursuehis profession of choice. When John Hooke died in 1648, he left Robertan inheritance of either forty or one hundred pounds, depending on the source, so he couldsecure an apprenticeship. At first, it seemed like Hooke was destinedto be an artist. He became an apprentice to Sir Peter Lely,a Dutch painter who was one of the premiere portraitists of his time. He also studied with Samuel Cowper, a mandescribed by Aubrey as the “prince of limners of this age.” A limner was someone who illuminated manuscriptsi.e. decorated them with drawings, borders, and initials. Hooke’s foray into the art world did notlast long. He discovered that the smell of oil colorsexacerbated the headaches that he suffered from since childhood so, instead, he enrolledat the Westminster School in London under headmaster Richard Busby. Here, Hooke learned Latin and Greek and gothis first taste of geometry. Early Years at OxfordAlways looking to expand his horizons, Hooke also took an interest in music and had twentylessons on the organ. This was enough to secure him a spot as achorister at Christ Church College in Oxford around 1653. There, he came under the influence of someof the most accomplished scientists of that era: Robert Boyle, Dr Thomas Willis, JohnWilkins, Christopher Wren. Eventually, he enrolled to study at WadhamCollege. Hooke himself later described these Oxforddays as the period of his life which cemented his love of science. We do have limited knowledge of Hooke’sscientific contributions during these early stages. He served as a chemistry assistant, firstto Willis and then to Boyle. According to his journal, Hooke designed andbuilt an air pump which Boyle used in his experiments with the pneumatic engine. He also came up with a variety of designswhich are lost to history regarding “the art of flying.” He presented these to John Wilkins who foundthem impractical, but ingenious. Hooke’s most significant invention at thistime, though, had to be the anchor escapement. This was a small cog fitted to pendulum clockswhich helped maintain the swing and made the clock more accurate by giving a small pushwith each swing. Hooke continued his studies of timepiecesas the years went on and, around 1660, also created the balance spring for pocket watches. It should be mentioned, though, that somebelieve that credit for this invention is due to Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens. At the same time, some historians argue thatHooke deserves partial recognition for Boyle’s Law, an experimental gas law described andnamed by his employer at the time, Robert Boyle. The reasoning behind this is that Hooke designedand built most of the apparatus used in Boyle’s experiments. The Curator of Experiments at the Royal SocietySomething important happened in 1660 - the Royal Society was born. One of the oldest learned societies stillin existence today, it eventually became the first national scientific society in the world. Unofficially, it existed for a couple of decadesprior to it becoming a formal organization and receiving a royal charter from King CharlesII. Initially, it consisted of various scientistswho got together to discuss ideas and experiments. Most were part of the Gresham College groupwho, as the name implies, met at Gresham College in London. Eventually, twelve of these scholars formeda committee and founded the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge. This was a bit of a mouthful, though, so,by the time the king granted them their charter in 1662, they were already known simply asthe Royal Society with William Brouncker serving as their first president. Now, Robert Hooke was not among the originaltwelve founders, but some of his friends and mentors were such as Robert Boyle, ChristopherWren, and John Wilkins. Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that Hookewas among the first new additions to the club. In November 1662, he became Curator of Experimentsat the Royal Society. This was described as a position that onlyHooke could fill as he was required to demonstrate three or four experiments at every meetingand, at first, he wasn’t even paid to do it. Yet Hooke acquitted himself marvelously ofhis duties as he finally had a scientific outlet for all the ideas he accrued over theyears and, as an audience, he had his most brilliant peers who were in the best positionto judge and appreciate his work. Hooke’s contributions were one of the mainreasons why the society flourished during its early stages. Consequently, he was appointed Curator forlife and, also, was granted another position of Cutlerian Lecturer in the Mechanical Artsso he may receive another salary from funds provided by Sir John Cutler. And if this didn’t keep Hooke busy enough,in 1665 he also became the Professor of Geometry at Gresham College. MicrographiaAmong the many accolades we can ascribe to Robert Hooke, we can add the popularizationof microscopes to the list. In 1665, he published the first major workin history on microscopy titled Micrographia or, to give it its original, full name, Micrographia:or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses. With Observations and Inquiries Thereupon. Even though the title was a tad long-winded,the book was a hit. It showed the world that Robert Hooke wasone of the preeminent scholars of his time and it also helped solidify the status ofthe Royal Society as this was its first major publication. The politician and famed diarist Samuel Pepyslabeled Micrographia “the most ingenious book that ever I read in my life.” Inside the book, people could see for thefirst time close-up, detailed drawings of insects and plants which were done by Hookehimself, therefore giving us a glimpse at his skill as an artist, as well. The images were accompanied by insightful,somewhat artful descriptions. Hooke’s most famous illustration, the flea,for example, was described as being a “little busie Creature...adorn’d with a curiouslypolish’d suit of sable Armour...and multitudes of sharp pinns, shap’d almost like Porcupine’sQuills.” Some entries were peppered with humor suchas the instance where Hooke described how he got an ant drunk so that it may sit stilland allowed to be examined. The scientist claimed he gave the insect brandywhich “knock’d him down dead drunk, so that he became moveless”, only to reviveand run away after about an hour. It wouldn’t be completely out of the questionto regard Hooke and his Micrographia as a science popularizer, trying to bring knowledgeto the masses a few centuries before his time. The microscope used for these examinationswas notable in of itself. Hooke did not build it. He outsourced this task to a famed Londoninstrument maker named Christopher Cock. Hooke did modify and refine it, though, byattaching a screw-operated focusing mechanism of his own design, as well as adding a waterlens which could aim a bright pinpoint of light on the smallest of targets. Another thing worthy of mention in Micrographiawas the first use of the biological term “cell” which denoted the basic structure which allorganisms are made out of. Hooke coined the word while looking at a pieceof bark from a cork tree under his microscope. He described it as being “perforated andporous, much like a honeycomb.” It was made out of little boxes which Hookecalled “cells” because they reminded him of the rooms of monks inside a monastery. Micrographia was a perfect example of howHooke’s mind worked. He was a man of many interests and he developedthem all at the same time. He wasn’t one to focus his attention onjust one thing. Even though the book was intended as a presentationof microscopy, it also described distant planetary bodies which Hooke observed with his telescope. It also presented his examination of fossilizedwood and Hooke’s associated ideas which resembled an early version of the . He alsotalked about the wave theory of light and other scientific interests which had nothingto do with the original purpose of Micrographia. Hooke also mentioned his ideas on combustion. At a time when other scientists were adoptingthe theory of phlogiston, a fire-like component which they thought existed in combustibleelements, Hooke opined that the process was determined by a substance which was mixedwith air. Although this is pure speculation, some modernscholars believe that, if Hooke had pursued this line of inquiry more fervently, he wouldhave discovered oxygen a hundred years earlier. Robert Hooke, ArchitectAlthough Hooke was, undoubtedly, a scientist, he actually made more money in his lifetimefrom his side job as an architect. On September 2, 1666, London was ravaged bya great fire which burned down most of the medieval part of the city. The blaze lasted for five days and consumedover 13,000 structures, most of them houses. Afterwards came the monumental task of rebuildingthe city. The duty (and the ensuing accolades) fellon Christopher Wren, someone who is literally remembered as “the man who rebuilt London.” This is not without merit. Wren oversaw the construction of many importantbuildings and structures. He designed 52 new churches, including hismagnum opus, St. Paul’s Cathedral. Wren was aided in his endeavor by Robert Hookewho served as his chief assistant and the new Surveyor to the City of London. But while Wren’s name is now inexorablytied to the architectural landscape of London, Hooke’s contributions are seldom rememberedeven though he surveilled and certified nearly 3,000 new foundations between 1667 and 1672. In his own time, John Aubrey gave Hooke creditfor building the Royal College of Physicians, Bethlem Royal Hospital, and Montagu House,among others. Even he did not know the full extent of Hooke’sinput, merely noting that Hooke was “much made use of” when it came to designing newstructures. It is hard to say with any certainty whatthe dynamic was between the partnership of Wren and Hooke. Some modern historians even argue that Hookewas the more important partner because it was his expertise in mechanics which mademany of the new buildings possible. We will probably never know for certain theextent of the influence that Hooke had on the landscape of London. Hooke’s LawHooke’s lasting contribution to physics is the law of elasticity that shares his name. Hooke’s Law states that the force neededto compress or extend a spring by some distance is proportional to that distance. The formula for this principle is F=-kX, whereF is the force applied to the spring, X is the distance the spring compresses or expandsand k is the spring constant which denotes its stiffness. The formula is typically presented with anegative value to show that the force exerted by the spring opposes its displacement. What might be more interesting to us, however,was the way in which Hooke presented his new principle. We are not exactly sure when Hooke first cameup with it. He had made claims about developing it asfar back as 1660, but he published it in 1678. Two years prior, however, he gave everyonea teaser in another book of his titled Descriptions of Helioscopes. He listed ten new discoveries and inventionswhich he intended to present in the near future. One of them was “The true Theory of Elasticityor Springiness, and a particular Explication thereof in several Subjects in which it isto be found: And the way of computing the velocity of Bodies moved by them. ceiiinosssttuv.” That last bit was not a typo, by the way,it was an anagram. Two years later, he revealed that it meant“Ut tensio, sic vis” which was Latin for “as the extension, so the force.” You might consider it a bit odd that Hookewent to such lengths, but it was not completely unheard of in those days to conceal your workingsbehind anagrams, cyphers, or some other kind of hidden message. The idea was that, by publicly presentinga theory in this way, the scientist established priority without revealing too much information. Afterwards, they were free to keep workingon their project for months, years, even decades, until it was fully fleshed out and ready topresent to the world. If, in the meantime, another researcher unveiledthe same idea, the initial scientist had proof that they started work on the subject first. There are quite a few important discoveriesand inventions whose originators are under doubt because multiple scientists worked onthem at the same time. Hence, Hooke’s use of the anagram, a strategythat had been employed by other prominent scientists such as Newton, Galileo, or Huygens. A Rivalry with NewtonAs you can see, Robert Hooke was incredibly accomplished, yet he enjoys only a fractionof the renown of his great contemporaries. But why is that? You know the old saying “history is writtenby the victor?” In this case, it could simply be that Hookepicked a fight with the wrong guy. Setting aside Hooke’s many talents, it isimportant to remember that he was still a man full of foibles. It seems that he was particularly pricklywhen he perceived that others tried to take credit for something he came up with. The problem was that Hooke often moved onfrom one idea to another if he did not perceive it to be important enough or something hecould use to patent and profit. This meant that a lot of his notions wereundeveloped and never advanced past the stage of scribbles on a piece of paper. It would be a little like crediting da Vinciwith the flying machine because he made a drawing of one. Unsurprisingly, this attitude led to severalfeuds with fellow scholars. We already mentioned in passing that he andChristiaan Huygens argued over who developed a spring for watches first. He also quarreled with a German theologianand scientist named Henry Oldenburg. But Hooke’s greatest rivalry, one that hada profound effect on his reputation, was with Isaac Newton. The relationship between the two turned sourin 1672 when Newton presented his notions on light and color. Hooke insisted that Newton’s work was basedon ideas of his which he developed in 1665. This quarrel was only the appetizer, though,as the main course came in 1687 when Isaac Newton published Philosophiae Naturalis PrincipiaMathematica or, simply, the Principia, arguably the most famous book in the history of science. Among other seminal principles, the Principiacontained Newton’s law of universal gravitation, an inverse square law that showed how planetarymotion worked. It was a landmark moment in physics, but Hookeaccused Newton of plagiarism. It is actually pretty hard to establish howmuch credit, if any, should go to Hooke. By Newton’s own admission, he correspondedwith Hooke on the matter, but he maintained that the latter never provided any new information. He might have concluded that an inverse squarelaw governed the motion of the planets, but he never produced any proof for it even thoughhe claimed to have it. This point of view was corroborated by EdmondHalley, another esteemed scientist known today for Halley’s Comet. He said that he asked for proof from bothHooke and Newton, but only the latter delivered. Halley later encouraged Newton to write thePrincipia and financed its publication out of his own pocket. French astronomer Alexis Clairaut was moretactful when dismissing Hooke’s claims, saying that they showed us “what a distancethere is between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated.” What Did Hooke Look Like? Hooke’s rivalry with Newton had a negativeeffect on his image, as well as his standing in the scientific world. Some of his later lectures reveal that henever conceded the point that he came up with the inverse square law first. In one of those lectures, he said “...concerningthose properties of gravity which I myself first discovered and showed to this Societyand years since, which of late Mr Newton has done me the favour to print and publish ashis own inventions.” Hooke gained a reputation of being bitterand disgruntled. He died in 1703 of an unspecified illnessand was buried at St Helen’s Bishopsgate, although the exact location is unknown. Soon afterwards, another Royal Society membernamed Richard Waller published a collection of Hooke’s posthumous works and includeda short biography where he described him as being “melancholy, mistrustful, and jealous.” This biography, the only one from a contemporary,influenced all those that followed, but we do not know the relationship between Hookeand Waller. As for Newton, he became President of theRoyal Society the same year that Hooke died and it is said that he took steps to ensurethat the world would forget his former rival. This may have included the destruction ofthe only known portrait of Robert Hooke so that even his likeness would be lost to history. But before we go on besmirching Newton’sgood name, we should stress that there is no solid evidence that he ever did this oreven that the portrait existed in the first place other than a few mentions. Some have speculated that Hooke never wantedto sit for a portrait because he had a weak and misshapen body due to his childhood illness. Indeed, today we have no idea what he lookedlike. This is the most famous representation ofHooke based on the few available descriptions, but you might be surprised to learn that thispainting, done by Rita Greer, is only 15 years old. She is one of the people who, in recent years,have undertaken efforts to restore Robert Hooke to his rightful place in the pantheonof Britain’s greatest scholars.
0 Comments