Science in England in the latter part of the seventeenth century is overshadowed by the mighty name of Newton, who has justly received the praises of all the great natural philosophers who came after him. In that springtime of science there were, however, in England a number of other men of genius who carried out work of prime importance—Robert Boyle; John Wallis and Isaac Barrow; Flamsteed and Halley; Willughby and Ray ; Sydenham and Glisson; and Robert Hooke. Of these Robert Hooke has good claims to be considered the greatest. Probably the most inventive man who ever lived, and one of the ablest experimenters, he had a most acute mind and made astonishingly correct conjectures, based on reason, in all branches of physics. Physics, however, was far from being his only field: he is the founder of scientific meteorology; as an astronomer he has observations of great significance to his credit; he did fundamental work on combustion and respiration; he was one of the founders of modern geology. He has, moreover, a particular claim to the attention and respect of our Society, for from 1662 to 1677 he held the office of Curator and from 1677 to 1682 he was one of our Secretaries. He was always indefatigable in his services to the Society, and for a period he produced new experiments or discoveries at practically every meeting. Most writers who have really studied his work have given Hooke enthusiastic praise, yet, on account of certain difficulties of character—difficulties which he was not the only one to possess—his name does not seem to be honoured as it should be among men of science in general. No one has ever devoted a book to his life and achievements,* but he has been made the subject of casual and ill-considered criticism. It therefore seemed to me that it would be altogether fitting that I should attempt to recall to you something about this extraordinary man; about his services to science and his services to our Society. Robert Hooke was born at Freshwater, in the Isle of Wight, on 18 July 1635, his father being curate of the parish. Aubrey says that his father was one of the family of the Hookes of Hooke in Hants. Hooke was thus seven years older than Newton, a fact which probably had some influence on the relations between the two men. Like Newton he was a weakly child, but whereas Newton grew up strong and straight, Hooke was never physically sound. We have a description of him from Richard Waller, who was Secretary of our Society from 1687 to 1709 (as well as again at a later period) and must have known him well. He tells us that as to his person he was but despicable, which recalls Samuel Pepys’ entry for 15 February 1664/5, where, after telling us that he was that day admitted to the Royal Society 'by signing a book and being taken by the hand of the President, my Lord Brouncker, and some words of admittance said to me’, he adds, ‘Above all, Mr Boyle was at the meeting, and above him Mr Hooke, who is the most, and promises the least, of any man in the world that ever I saw.’ Hooke was very bent and crooked, but told Waller that he was straight until he was about 16, when he grew, awry by working at the lathe. Hooke, who left some notes about his early life, also said that as a boy he was very sprightly and active in running and leaping ‘tho ’ very weak as to any robust Exercise ’. ‘ He went ’, says Waller, ‘ stooping and very fast having but a light Body to carry and a great deal of Spirits and Activity, especially in his Youth.’ He was also, one gathers, meanly ugly, very pale and lean: ‘ His Eyes grey and full, with a sharp ingenious Look whilst younger; his Nose but thin, of moderate height and length; his Mouth meanly wide and upper Lip thin; his Chin sharp and Forehead large.... He wore his own Hair of a dark Brown colour, very long and hanging neglected over his Face, uncut and lank.’ Aubrey, who seems to have been his close friend and most anxious to speak well of him—he says that he was a person ‘ of great suavity and goodness ’—also records that he was something crooked, that his head was large but the lower part of his face little and that his grey eyes were ‘ full and popping ’. I think it important that you should know something of his appearance and great physical disabilities, and I quote so fully from the descriptions of those that knew him because I can say with some confidence that there is no known portrait of any kind of him, although in his diary* he seems to suggest that one Bonus (usually spelt Bownest), a known artist, drew his picture. It is one of my ambitions to find that picture.
