“Give Me a Telescope and I Shall Move the Earth”: Hooke's Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations

“Nec miremur tam tarde erui quae tam alte iacent.” Seneca , Quaestiones naturales, lib. VII, cap. 30, 2 (Hooke's reference is misleading: Lib. I, cap. 30).

Hooke Robert , An attempt to prove the motion of the Earth from observations (London, 1674). See also Keynes Geoffrey , A bibliography of Dr. Robert Hooke (Oxford, 1960), 30.

The pun was already in Seneca who discussed comets in the Book 7 of Quaestiones naturales.

The last page of the Attempt is frequently alluded to, as it formulates the famous “System of the World” that Newton read and completed. Since W. W. Rouse Ball's pioneering study of 1893 and rediscovery of the letters exchanged between Hooke and Newton in 1679–80, the role of Hooke in Newton's development toward the inverse square law of gravitation has been much discussed in an extensive secondary literature. Hooke's “System of the World” at the end of the Attempt has played an important role in this ongoing discussion. see for instance Koyré Alexandre , “An unpublished letter of Robert Hooke to Isaac Newton”, Isis, xliii (1952), 312–37, and Pugliese P. J. , “Robert Hooke and the dynamics of motion in a curved path”, in Robert Hooke, new studies, ed. by Hunter M. Schaffer S. (Woodbridge, 1989), 181–205. Recent studies include Gal Ofer , Meanest foundations and nobler superstructures: Hooke, Newton and the ‘compounding of the celestiall motions of the planetts’ (Dordrecht, 2002), and Hunter M. , “Hooke the natural philosopher”, in Bennett Jim , London's Leonardo: The life and work of Robert Hooke (Oxford, 2003), 105–62, pp. 139–40. With the exception of Bennett Jim (especially in his studies of 1989 and 2003 that I quote below), however, few commentators have taken the whole text into consideration.

Specific methods of astronomical observation had become possible in 1669 that were not so in, for example, 1640. An example is the pioneering work on object glass manufacture by Huygens and Campani in the 1650s, making possible the 3 ½-inch diameter, 36-foot focus lens by Richard Reeves that Hooke used. In addition, the revolution in the micrometric measurement of small angles after Gascoigne's methods, described in private letters of circa 1640, became more widely known after publication and commentary by Hooke in 1667. Without these technological developments, Hooke's context-related investigations would not have been feasible. See Bennett J. , “Hooke's instruments for astronomy and navigation”, Hunter Schaffer (eds), Robert Hooke: New studies (ref. 4), 21–32; Bennett J. , “Hooke's instruments”, in Bennett , London's Leonardo (ref. 4), 63–104; Bennett J. , “Instruments and ingenuity”, in Robert Hooke: Tercentennial studies, ed. Cooper M. Hunter M. (Aldershot, 2006), 65–76.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 1.

Ibid., 4.

Ibid., 2.

Ibid., 3.

On the Baconian aspect of Hooke's denunciation of human errors, as exposed in the General scheme but already perceptible in the Attempt, see Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 4, 2003), 117–20.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 3.

See for instance one of the first reactions to De revolutionibus in Rheticus's Narratio prima: “With regard to the apparent motions of the Sun and Moon, it is perhaps possible to deny what is said about the motion of the Earth…. But if anyone desires to look either to the principal end of astronomy and the order and harmony of the system of the spheres or to ease and elegance and a complete explanation of the causes of the phenomena, by no other hypotheses will he demonstrate more neatly and correctly the apparent motions of the remaining planets” (transl. slightly modified from E. Rosen by Gingerich O. ), Three Copernican treatises (New York, 1971), 165 and 192. As quoted in Gingerich O. , “From Copernicus to Kepler: Heliocentrism as model and as reality”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vi (1973), 513–22, p. 514.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 4.

Ibid., 2–3.

Ibid., 3.

Ibid., 3.

Ibid., 4.

Ibid., 5.

” and therefore we may hence learn, upon what sure grounds all the Astronomers hitherto have built, who have calculated the distance of the Planets from the Horizontal Parallax; for since the Refraction and Parallax are so nearly ally'd, that the one cannot be known without the other, especially by any wayes that have been yet attempted, how uncertain must the Parallax be, when the Refraction is unknown? And how easie is it for Astronomers to assign what distance they please to the Planets, and defend them, when they have such a curious subterfuge as that of Refraction, wherein a very little variation will allow them liberty enough to place the Celestial Bodies at what distance they please.” Hooke Robert , Micrographia (London, 1667), 236. This criticism is repeated in the Attempt: “Now if we are uncertain what part of the observed Angle is to be ascribed to refraction, we are uncertain of the whole observation as far as the possible uncertainty of refraction. Let me have but the liberty of supposing the refraction what I please, and of fixing the proportional decrease thereof according to the various elevation of the Rayes above the Horizon; I will with ease make out all the visible Phenomena of the Universe, Sun, Moon, and Stars, and yet not suppose them above a Diameter of the Earth distant.” Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 15.

Shapin Steven Schaffer Simon , Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life (Princeton, 1985), chap. 2.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 8.

Ibid., 8.

” and thirdly, the common way of Division is also lyable to many inconveniencies: And 'tis hardly possible to ascertain all the subdivisions of Degrees into minutes for the whole Quadrant, though that be not altogether impossible.” Ibid., 8.

Ibid., 4.

Ibid., 2.

On the transformation and attribution of the phrase experimentum crucis, see Vickers Brian , “Francis Bacon and the progress of knowledge”, Journal of the history of ideas, iii (1992), 495–518, p. 511. According to Vickers, the coinage was made by Robert Boyle, in his Defence of the doctrine touching the spring and weight of the air (1662), referring to Pascal's experiment on the Puy-de-Dôme as “an experimentum crucis (to speak with our illustrious Verulam)”, in Boyle's Works, ed. by Birch T. (London, 1772), i, 151.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 8–9.

Bennett , op. cit. (ref. 5, 1989), 25.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 9.

“For though Ticho, a man of unquestionable truth in his assertions, affirm it possible to observe with large Instruments, conveniently mounted and furnished with sights contrived by himself (and now the common ones for Astronomical Instruments) to the accurateness of ten Seconds; and though Riccioli and his ingenious and accurate Companion Grimaldi affirm it possible to make observations by their way, with the naked edge to the accurateness of five Seconds; Yet Kepler did affirm, and that justly, that 'twas impossible to be sure to a less Angle then 12 Seconds: And I from my own experience do find it exceeding difficult by any of the common sights yet used to be sure to a minute.” Ibid., 8.

Olmsted J. , “The application of telescopes to astronomical instruments, 1667–1669: A study in historical method”, Isis, xl (1949), 213–25, esp. p. 222. According to Olmsted, ” The application of telescopes to astronomical instruments, instruments with graduated arcs for measuring angles, was the final step in the conversion of the telescope from an instrument of celestial discovery into an instrument of precision. It brought an increase in the accuracy with which large celestial angles could be measured which was revolutionary in character and consequences”, p. 214.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 9.

Glanvill J. , The vanity of dogmatizing (London, 1661), sigs. B2v—B4v and 5–9.

Glanvill J. , Scepsis scientifica (London, 1665), “To the Royal Society”, sig b4v, as quoted in Shapin and Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 20), 37.

“C'est la partie la plus polémique de tout l'article, mais une polémique si serrée qu'elle a toutes les apparences de la plus rébarbative des proses.” Latour B. Bastide F. , “L'opéra du rein — Mise en scène, mise en fait”, in Petites leçons de sociologie des sciences (Paris, 1993), 83–99, p. 93.

Hooke's device was perfectly in keeping with the perspective machines and optical devices used by painters and natural philosophers alike since the Renaissance. See Kemp M. , The science of art: Optical themes in Western art from Brunelleschi to Seurat (New Haven and London, 1990), chap. 4: “Machines and marvels”.

Kemp M. , “Temples of the body and temples of the cosmos”, in Picturing knowledge: Historical and philosophical problems concerning the use of art in science, ed. by Baigrie B. S. (Toronto, 1996), 40–85, pp. 43–44.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 28.

Ibid., 27.

Bennett , op. cit. (ref. 5, 1989), 32. See also Bennett , op. cit. (ref. 5, 2003), 80–3.

“We see therefore the necessity of the conjunction of Physical and Philosophical with Mechanical and Experimental Knowledge”, Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 16.

“Let represent the Earth in Capricorn, and the Earth in Cancer, let 1 2. 1 2. represent the imaginary Axis of the Earth, keeping continually a parallelism to its self, and let ABCD represent an imaginary Plain passing through the center of the Star at D in the Solstitial Colure, and the two centers of the Earth in ɛ and ζ, and C represent the Zenith point of Gresham Colledge at noon, when the Earth is in Cancer, and A the Zenith point of the said Colledge at midnight in the aforesaid Orb ABCD when the Earth is in Capricorn, 'tis manifest therefore that since the Poles of the Earth, the Poles of the Ecliptick, and the Zenith points of the Earth at noon, when in Cancer, and at midnight, when in Capricorn, are all in the same Plain; and that the Axis of the Earth keeps alwayes its parallelism, and that the Angles made by the Perpendiculars of Gresham Colledge, with the Axes are alwayes the same, that the aforesaid Perpendiculars of the said Colledge shall be parallel also one to another, and consequently denote out two points in the above said Orb A and C as far distant from each other as the parallel Lines A and C are, and consequently the point A shall be farther from the Star in D, and the point C shall be nearer to it, when in the Meridian near the Zenith of London, and consequently if the said Star be observed when in the Meridian of the place above said, if there be any such difference considerable, it may be found if convenient Instruments and care be made use of for the observation….” Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 12.

“Now in this observation there is no refraction at all, and consequently be the Air thicker or thinner, heavier or lighter, hotter or colder, be it in Summer or Winter, in the night or the day, the ray continually passeth directly, and is not at all refracted and deflected from its streight passage. In the next place, by this way of observing I avoid all the difficulties that attend the making, mounting, and managing of great Instruments: For I have no need of Quadrant, Sextant, or Octant, nor of any other part or Circle bigger then a Degree at most; nor have I need to take care of the divisions and subdivisions thereof, nor of the substance whether made of Iron, Brass, Copper, or Wood, nor whether the parts thereof shrink or swell, or bend or warp, to all which the best Instruments hitherto made use of, have been some wayes or other lyable. And notwithstanding the vast care and expence of the noble Ticho about the making, fixing, and using his great Instruments; yet I do not find them so well secured from divers of these inconveniences, but that they were still subject to some considerable irregularities.” Ibid., 14–15.

Ibid., 11.

Ibid., 13.

“By this observation of the Star in the day time when the Sun shined, with my 36 foot Glass I found the body of the Star so very small, that it was but some few thirds in Diameter, all the spurious rayes that do beard it in the night being cleerly shaved away, and the naked body thereof left a very small white point.” Ibid., 26.

Brahe Tycho , Opera omnia, ed. by Dreyer J. L. E. (15 vols, Copenhagen, 1913–29), vi, 145.

According to John Harwood, a principle of coherence encompasses micro- and macrocosms in Hooke's Micrographia: “by connecting the first observation (the point of a needle) and the last (the moon as a point in space)…. In the final observation, the stars and the moon became both ‘points’ on a page and points in space, and in Hooke's engraving of the moon, the craters resemble the craters on the point of the needle. In this way, he established both verbal and visual continuities.” Harwood J. , “Rhetoric and graphics in Micrographia”, in Hunter Schaffer (eds), Robert Hooke: New studies (ref. 4), 119–47, p. 138.

Kemp , op. cit. (ref. 37), 71.

See for instance Wren's critique of Hevelius: The telescope, when properly used, allows one “not only [to] draw Pictures of the Moon, as Hevelius has done, but Survey her & give exact maps of her, & discover exactly her various Inclinations, and herein Hevelius's Errors”. As quoted in Bennett , op. cit. (ref. 5, 2003), 21. Such correction was precisely what Hooke undertook in the last observation of Micrographia (” of the Moon”, 242–6).

Hooke , Micrographia (ref. 19), 234.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 10.

The reversal of forces by way of optical instruments is in fact a recurrent figure of Hooke's rhetoric. See for instance the last sentence of the Preface of Micrographia: “my little Objects are to be compar'd to the greater and more beautiful Works of Nature, a Flea, a Mite, a Gnat, to an Horse, an Elephant, or a Lyon”.

Latour B. , “Give me a laboratory and I shall move the world”, in Science observed, ed. by Mulkay M. Knorr-Cetina K. (Beverly Hills, 1983), 141–70, p. 164.

Shapin S. , “Who was Robert Hooke?”, in Robert Hooke: New studies (ref. 4), 253–85.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 6.

Ibid., 25.

For a discussion of contemporary attempts, especially Picard and Cassini, see Peters C. A. F. , “Recherches sur la parallaxe des étoiles fixes”, Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, 6th ser., v (St Petersburg, 1848), 1–180, p. 7; Pedersen Kurt Möller , “Rømer, Flamsteed, and the search for a stellar parallax”, Vistas in astronomy, xx (1976), 165–9.

Williams M. E. , “Flamsteed's alleged measurement of annual parallax for the Pole Star”, Journal for the history of astronomy, x (1979), 102–16. As Mari Williams explains, ” The reaction to Flamsteed's work was much more positive. His measurement of the annual parallax of the Pole Star given in a letter to John Wallis that was published in 1699, convinced most of the British astronomers that parallax had been detected and measured at last”, p. 102.

See notably Harwood , op. cit. (ref. 48), and Dennis M. A. , “Graphic understanding: Instruments and interpretation in Robert Hooke's Micrographia”, Science in context, iii (1989), 309–64.

Hannaway O. , “Laboratory design and the aim of science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brahe”, Isis, lxxvii (1986), 584–610.

Shackelford J. , “Tycho Brahe, laboratory design, and the aim of science: Reading plans in context”, Isis, lxxxiv (1993), 211–30.

Newman W. , “Alchemical symbolism and concealment: The chemical house of Libavius”, in Architecture of science, ed. by Galison P. Thomson E. (Cambridge, MA, 1999), 59–77.

“finding a Tube would be very troublesome to the Rooms through which it past, especially if it were placed pretty far in the Room, and that one wanted so free an access as was necessary if it were planted nigh the wall, and that there was no absolute necessity of such an intermediate Tube, supposing there were a cell to direct the eye fixt to the Eye Glass, and that there were some short cell to carry the Object Glass in at the top, so as to keep it steady, when raised upward or let downwards, the light in the intermediate Rooms not at all hindring, but rather proving of good use to this purpose for seeing the Mensurator.” Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 17.

Ibid.

Shapin Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 20), chaps. 2, 5, 6.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 2), 28.

“his diary records his putting the finishing touches to the scale model for the ‘Piller’ in October 1673, and a final drawing in his hand is endorsed by Wren.” Jardine L. , “Monuments and microscopes: Scientific thinking on a grand scale in the early Royal Society”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, lv (2001), 289–308, p. 300.

For discussion on the relationship between Hooke's scientific endeavour and the Monument, see Bennett J. , The mathematical science of Christopher Wren (Cambridge, 1982), esp. p. 42, Jardine , op. cit. (ref. 68), and Cooper M. , ‘A More Beautiful City’: Robert Hooke and the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire (Stroud, 2003).

Hooke wanted to get the longest-focus lens he could for the Monument (and failed), and the foundations gave the maximum projection distance and were the most convenient place from which to observe.

This monumentality is even clearer if one recalls that in February 1704, the year following Hooke's death, Wren suggested using St Paul's Cathedral as a super-size zenith telescope. Bennett J. , op. cit. (ref. 69), 42, note 27.

As Jim Bennett explains, the Monument proved ineffective as a telescope (but served as a giant barometer) precisely for the reasons described in the Attempt.

According to Paradis James , “Bacon's metaphor, the warehouse, reflects the stylistic object of the new literary enterprise to purge self from text, and the structural object to dismantle the received systems and store what remains in a literature of elements and parts”. Paradis J. “Montaigne, Boyle and the essay of experience”, in One culture: Essays on science and literature, ed. by Levine G. (Madison, 1987), 59–91, p. 68.

“In the early seventeenth century, impressed by Michel de Montaigne's Essais, Francis Bacon composed a set of similarly titled, briefly tentative moral reflections. Robert Boyle soon adapted this kind of literary technology to his experimental ‘essays’. Since then the English language has somewhat distinguished between essay and assay, between literary work in library or study and the messy labours of workshops, mines or mints. Other languages make the distinction fuzzier, as the paired terms essai/experience and Versuch/Probe indicate.” Schaffer Simon , “Public experiments”, in Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy, ed. by Latour Bruno Weibel Peter (Cambridge, MA, 2005), 298–307, pp. 299–300.