sign in sign up
<<
Home , Robert Hooke

Book Review and Essay: The and Physical Geography of Hooke (1635-1703)

The Forgotten Genius: The Biography ofRobert Hooke 1653-1703. By Stephen Inwood. San Francisco: MacAdam/Cage, 2003. 482pp. $28.50. ISBN 1-931561-56-7 The Curious Life ofRobert Hooke: The Man Who Measured . By . New York: Harper Collins, 2004, 422pp. $27.95. ISBN 0-06-053897-X

Reviews and Short Biography of Hooke by Keith Montgomery University of Wisconsin -·Marathon County

Popular scientific biographies cannot be Hooke's, allowing that "If I have seen further, it is expected to make a complete exposition and by standing on the shoulders of giants" (1676), assessment of their subject's work: such would later, concerning Hooke's claim to priority in require specialist treatment directed at a different universal gravitation and the inverse-square law, audience. Assessing the scientific contributions of Newton wrote of Hooke as someone who "should Robert Hooke (1635-1703) is notably difficult have excused himself by of his inability," because he contributed significantly to the someone who "does nothing but pretend and grasp" development of scientific knowledge in so many -- "a man of strange and unsociable temper" (1686). fields, and he was so prolific with ideas and Newton then: deleted a reference to "the Most suggestions that partisans of his genius can usually Illustrious Hooke" from a draft of Book III of the find something in his writing to confirm their faith. "Principia" and added a prominent and glowing it is clear, for example, that the Newton specialist mention of Wren, Wallis, and (Gleick Richard Westfall (1969) brings considerably greater 2003, note 6, p.224); delayed pUblication of his critical power to bear upon Hooke's physics than "" (I704) until after Hooke's death "To upon his geology. At the same time, Drake (1981, avoid being engaged in disputes;" and, finally, on 1996) and Drake and Komar (1983) are almost becoming President of the Royal Society, again uncritical champions ofthe view that Hooke, after Hooke's death, is said to have destroyed the single-handedly and without credit, was the founder only portrait of Hooke believed to have existed (but of modern geology. see Jardine 2004, for a possible discovery). As Curator ofExperiments for the Royal Hooke's inventions and improvements were Society (1662-1677), Secretary of the Royal numerous and highly ingenious and included the Society (1 677-1682), Gresham Professor of iris diaphragm, the universal joint, the compound G~ (')m e try (1665-1703), and Cutlerian Lecturer in , the wheel barometer, and the basic Mecllanics (1664-1703), Robert Hooke contributed mechanism for the pocket (over which he had to developments in astronomy, , , a patent dispute with Huygens). Hooke's version of , , and geology. His ideas in the air pump was a wonder of its time and optics and celestial mechanics, although rarely in his days (1657-1662) as 's worked through to a complete, conclusive assistant he had much to do with Boyle's mathematical demonstration (see Westfall 1969), formulation of his famous law. He was also prefigured Newton's mathematical and appointed City Surveyor of London (1666-1676) experimental triumphs, and he dogged Newton with following the Great Fire, in which capacity he laid claims of plagiarism; hence, ultimately, he became out and oversaw the execution of the new street a victim, both in life and death, ofNewton's wrath plan and contributed in the design of buildings, and almost boundless vindictiveness (see including some churches formerly attributed to 'Espinasse 1956, and Gleick 2003). While, earlier, Wren (Inwood 2003, pp.124-127): and it was Newton had graciously admitted the influence of Hooke who designed the Monument to the Great others' ideas in his thinking about optics, including Fire. For all this, he is probably known to most

66 people only for "Hooke's Law:" namely, the geological writing. Neither bibliographer mentions restoring due to a spring is proportional to the an earlier rancorous exchange in 1673 with Henry length that the spring is stretched provided the Oldenburg, the Secretary ofthe Royal Society, over elastic limit is not exceeded. Oldenburg having translated and published Steno's As 2005 is the 300th anniversary ofthe 1669 "Prodromus," which contained an argument i pUblication ofhis Posthumous Works , which concerning the organic origin of and a theory include his "Discourses of earthquakes and ofthe Earth, something Hooke had first laid out in subterraneous eruptions," and since two popular 1665 in his "" and in detail in 1668 in biographies have been published so recently an extended lecture ("discourse") before the Royal (Inwood 2003; Jardine 2004), this might be a good Society. time to assess his contributions to geology and "Micrographia" ( 1665) contains a Preface geomorphology . in which Hooke lays out a scientific philosophy that The earliest modern biography of Hooke is is more or less hypothetico-deductive (Hooke 'Espinasse's (1956) fairly short topical review. commented further on this in his discourses of June Relatively little research and commentary on 1667 - September 1668 and December-January of Hooke's geological work existed in 1956 (Lyell 1868-1687). The detailed observations contained in 1830; Geikie 1905; Rossiter 1935; Edwards 1936; Micrographia were made possible by Hooke's Andrade 1950) and his "Lectures and discourses of design changes on the microscope (particularly earthquakes and subterraneous eruptions" was only illumination ofthe subject) and his great skill as an re-published in 1969 for the frrst time in over 100 artist. The book was a sensation, but it contains years (Westfall 1969). Perhaps not surprisingly, much more than magnified observations ofplants 'Espinasse comments on Hooke's geology almost in and animals, which alone should have secured his the passing (pp.47,53 ,76-77). She devotes chapters reputation. The book also contributes to: a chemical to Hooke's Micrographia (1665) and the Cutlerian theory of combustion; a mechanical view ofheat; Lectures, but little to the Discourses before the . the use of hair as a hygrometer; a theory ofcolor Royal Society that contained the bulk of his and ; a design for a new thennometer; a theory geological thinking. She notes that, as in so many linking respiration and combustion; a detailed other matters, "Neglect also overtook Hooke's descr1iption of plant cells ("cells" being hjs views on geology and ..." (p.76). coinage); and a view of as Inwood (2003) and Jardine (2004) are the "bombardment holes." He also devoted a chapter to first popular biographies in almost fifty years; both a careful comparison of fossilized wood and shells make interesting presentations out of Hooke's life. to living examples, and his observations lead him to Jardine's book is the shorter of the two and perhaps conclude that fossils are true petrified organic the more entertaining, but Inwood's book, first remains and are not "fonn'd by some extraordinary published in Britain in 2002 under the title "The Plastick virtue latent in the Earth it self' as was man who knew too much," is more comprehensive commonly believed at the time (p.11 0). He argued and fast-paced and is ultimately much the more that "Nature does nothing in vain; it seems, I say, satisfying of the two. Both authors devote much contrary to that great Wisdom ofNature, that these space to the politicking within the Royal Society prettily shaped bodies should have all those curious and the various controversies over priority which Figures and contrivances ... generated or wrought embroiled Hooke all-too-frequently, but little to by a Plastick virtue, for no higher end then only to actually assessing the real value ofhis ideas. exhibit such a fonn" (p.112). He suggested that they Jardine devotes nothing to his geological work, came to be in their present locations "either by inserting reference to some of his observations on some Deluge, Inundation, Earthquake, or some­ fossils only as part of an account of his up-bringing such means" (p.lll) and recommended that a on the , in southern . Inwood systematic collection and study be made ofthese provides brief accounts of Hooke's geological work phenomena (p.112). at various stages ofhis life (pp.116-119, 347-348, Hooke elaborated greatly on these views in 364-366). While making no attempt to asses their a series of lectures ("discourses") before the Royal value, these accounts are roughly proportionate to Society between June 1667 and September 1668 (he everything else in his busy life and Inwood devotes added new arguments on severaJ occasions over the an entire chapter to an important dispute in 1687 next 32 years in what he saw as a failed attempt to with the Oxford John Wallis over persuade rus colleagues in the Royal Society). He Hooke's disregard ofBiblical chronology in his then believed that the Secretary ofthe Royal 67 Society, , who kept up find none at present; and that 'tis not unlikely also correspondence with societies and individuals but that there may be divers new kinds now, which abroad (and who spent two months in 1667 in The have not been from the beginning" (Waller 1705, Tower under suspicion of treason for "writing news pp.291, 327, 435). Not surprisingly , the to a virtuoso in France:" Winter 1916, p.197), had naturalist and natural theologian, regarded his own given away his ideas on fossils to Steno (Eyles growing belief in the organic origin of fossils as 1958, p.174). To add to the injury, Oldenburg fraught with dangers and "such a train of translated and published Steno's (1669) consequences as seem to shock the Scripture­ "Prodromus" between 1671 and 1673 before Hooke History of the novity of the world" (Ray 1695, had a chance to publish his lectures from 1668 on quoted in Davies 1969, p.17). Like Steno, Hooke the subject. Hooke was not placated by Oldenburg's also addressed their burial by deposition, the Preface, in which he wrote: "Mr. Robert Hooke has processes of fossilization, and the lithifaction of the .. . ready some Discourses upon this very argument enclosing rock (Waller 1705, pp.291, 294). [the organic origin offossils], which, by reason of Hooke also had to account for the the many avocations he hath met with in the widespread distribution of fossils at all altitudes rebuilding of the City of London, and his (also depths) and distances from the sea. In contrast attendance on the R. Society [Hooke was Curator to the proponents of the Deulge (e.g. Steno, and had to furnish three demonstrations per week to Woodward), who at least accepted the organic meetings], he hath not yet been able quite to finish origin of fossils, Hooke argued for the power of for the press" (Winter 1968, p.lll). In fact, Hooke earthquakes and volcanoes to alter the distribution never did fmish these lectures for the press, and a of land and sea, and believed that this had happened final total of 27, dating from 1668 to 1700, were repeatedly: "nor are these changes only now -- but ii published posthumously in 1705 ; in the meantime, they have in all probability been of longstanding as Oldenburg in his Preface quoted Boyle's the world" (Waller 1705, p.314). He had also unpublished opinions on the subject of minerals and placed sub-aerial processes alongside earthquakes fossils and so appeared to give him a share of the as agents of surface change that tended to level out priority Hooke fully deserved. the effects of the latter, and so briefly outlined a It should be noted that Steno had already rudimentary cyclic view of the continents (Waller published on the subject in 1667 (GarboeI958) and 1705, pp.312-313). Later, for good measure ("to his polished geological observations and arguments leave everyone to the freedom of his thoughts:" are clearly his own work (see Eyles 1958). Hooke Waller 1705, p. 412), he also offered raising and again returned to subject of priority in a discourse lowering of crustal bocks as a mechanism for the in July 1694 in which he castigated the Society for "gathering of the waters" during Creation and for not publishing his work while, meantime, the Paris the Flood (Waller 1705, ppAI2-415) although he had published a memoir in 1692 believed that these were not the only occasions on concerning "much the same with what I have which land and sea had exchanged places and formerly presented to this honorable society" neither did he think the Flood alone an adequate (Waller 1705, p.448). Given the difficulty he was means to account for the distribution of fossils experiencing in getting his organic views accepted (Waller 1705, p.4-12). He speculated that in London, Hooke wondered why what passed in earthquakes and volcanoes had perhaps been more Paris "for a good argument .. . may not also be a frequent in the past, before Earth had "waxed old as good argument here" (Waller 1705, pA48). animals and vegetables do ... harder and fixt . . . However Hooke may have underestimated his [and] before the fuels ... were much spent" (Waller impact on English geological thinking beyond the 1705, p. 325). Here Hooke echoes a common, Royal Society (see Ito 1988, for a review). directionalist religious view of the time. In arguing for an organic origin for fossils In early 1687 Hooke outlined a coherent Hooke had to address the question as to why they theory to account for repeated uplift and often appeared to represent creatures that were no subsidence. He argued that Earth is oblate (again longer living. Not content simply to assert that correctly foreshadowing Newton) and he perhaps they do still exist somewhere, yet to be conjectured that Earth is repeatedly subject to what discovered, he argued for evolution and today we term "true polar wander" (see movie caused .by environmental change as continents had animation at changed their latitude: "there have been many other http://www.gps.caltech.edul-devanS/iitpw/science.h species of creatures in former ages, of which we can tml). He offered some possible mechanicat and 68 astronomical tests of these ideas (Waller 1705, remarkable lectures between late 1687 and 'late pp.345-362). Polar shift of an oblate Earth, he 1693, in which he examined recent accounts of believed, would shift stresses within the planet's earthquakes and volcanoes and in which he body and cause displacements ofthe "external" and reinterpreted classical mythology as containing "internal" parts ofEarth. In addition, the greater hidden knowledge ofjust such interchanges of land equatorial depth ofan oblate ocean would further and sea as he had believed necessary to explain contribute to submergence or emergence of land as fossils. His obsession in this interpretive task makes latitudes shifted. Reference has been made above to his views appear increasingly catastrophist and the effects of latitude shift on evolution and linear as he loses sight of his overall theory of extinction. Submergence would result in deposition earthquakes. Lyell (1830 pp.31-35), who had and in preservation of animal remains (WaHer 1705, expressed a very high opinion of Hooke as the first pp.346-348). English geologist to argue cogently for the organic His new theory ofoblateness and repeated origin of fossils "in opposition to the prejudices of polar shift was ridiculed (so he thought) by an old his age," believed that Hooke expended his Oxford acquaintance, the mathematician John scientific capital on this work and that "for this Wallis who, in March 1687, wrote that Hooke reason, perhaps, his whole theory of earthquakes caused the Earth to be "tossed and turned upside met with very undeserved neglect" (p.35). Although down ... and the top ofthe Alps become a sea only his theory of polar shift lacked conclusive proof, at to enable us to give an account of some fish-shells least it had not been "proposed dogmatically, but foundthere"(Oldroyd 1989, p.212). WaUis declared rather in the hope of promoting fresh inquiries and that the Alps had never been under water "except in experiments" (p.33). Such was the impact of Noah's Flood" (Oldroyd 1989, p. 211) and that there Wallis's criticism on the direction of Hooke's work were no historical (particularly Biblical) records of that Young (1987) came to count Hooke among the the kind ofchanges Hooke envisaged, either before "scriptural geologists." or after the Flood. Wallis thought the idea that "the But perhaps more than just Wallis's whole face ofthe Earth should have been ... many criticism was acting upon Hooke. In May 1689, times all covered with water and dried again ... too Hooke ins,isted again that evolution and extinction extravagant for us to admit" and wondered "in what had happened, and declared "yet I do not see how ages ofthe world ... should this have happened" this doth in the least derogate from the power, (Oldroyd 1989, pp.211-212). Wallis himself Wisdom, and Providence ofGod, as is alleged, or subscribed to the view that fossils were simply that it doth any ways contradict any part ofthe mineral growths that resembled animal remains. Scripture ... I think quite the contrary inferences In response Hooke offered further possible may, nay, must, and ought to be made" (Waller observational tests of polar shift, but these proved 1705, p.435). He continued, just as individuals impracticable or inconclusive (Oldroyd 1989, grow and develop and die, "then why may there not pp.221-225). He also vacillated somewhat on the be the same progression ofthe species from its first question ofrepeated submersions: "as for my creation to its final termination?" (p.435). Here asserting it to have been so many times covered and Hooke also referred to the commonly held dried as he [Wallis] alleges, this proceeds either theological v,iew that the Earth itself was in from a falsity ... or a mistake of his information" dissolution. In July 1690 Hooke took further care to (Oldroyd 1989, pp. 215). However, in a striking argue that his ideas were not blasphemous; conjecture, Hooke declared that one day fossils specifically, his beliefthat not all land (such themselves might be used "to raise a Chronology [a as the Americas) are accounted for in the Bible and history]l ... to state the intervals ofthe times his inquiries into the proximate physical causes of wherein such catastrophes and mutations have phenomena in general: "Divine Providence is not happened" (Waller 1705, p.411). However, Hooke's less conspicuous in every production we can conception of "chronology" is well within the then natural" (Waller 1705, pp. 423-424). It is as ifhe commonly accepted limits of Earth being no more felt on somewhat dangerous ground. Then, in June than a few thousand years old; in fact, he suggests 1693, he seems to have realized that perhaps he the Alps might weU have been raised in the time might have gone too far in using classical (pagan) since the Flood (Waller 1705, p.324). mythology as a source of knowledge and he In the absence ofa conclusive carefully points out that "those who made this fable demonstration ofhis ideas (something not unusual [he was discussing Phaeton] knew better things, and for Hooke) he then embarked on a series of only made use ofmythology to conceal their 69 knowledge from the vulgar" (Waller 1705, p.391 ­ workable framework for geology regardless of see Rappaport, 1986, for dating of this lecture). It is errors in the details (see the subtitle to Lyell's 1830 possible that Hooke was here reacting to the fate of "Principles"), as was also the case with some of Thomas Burnet who was famous for "The Sacred Steno's generalizations on strata. Theory ofthe Earth" (Latin 1681-89, English 1684­ In one ofhis last lectures, in 1694, 90), and which Hooke's had read carefully. In 1692 frustrated at the prejudices he believed lay behind Burnet published "Archaeologiae philosophicae the lack ofacceptance ofhis arguments for fossils, sive doctrina antique de rerum originibus" which he returned to his first principles as a scientist: Hooke reported on to the Royal Society in "one may easily believe that many changes December 1692 (see Ito 1988, footnote 39 p.302). may have happened on Earth of which we In this book Burnet drew upon ancient myths can have no written history ... to me it concerning the creation ofthe world (as he had seems very absurd to conclude that from the done in 1681), but he argued, further, that the beginning things have continued in the same Biblical account of the Fall was also an allegory. state we now fmd them, since we find every For his views Burnet was removed from his thing to change and vary in our position as Clerk ofthe Closet in the Court ofKing remembrance; certainly 'tis a vain thing to William (Davies 1969, p.74). make experiments and collect observations Hooke's continued his discourses on if, when we have them, we may not make geology almost up to end ofhis life. There remains use of them; if we must not believe our the question as to his influence in the English­ senses, if we may not judge ofthings by speaking world: while some ofhis contemporaries trials and sensible proofs, ifwe may not be were persuaded of his views on fossils (Ito 1988), allowed to take notice of and to make his larger theory ofearthquakes and the Earth had necessary consectaries and corollaries, but no followers, except possibly for Raspe (1763; must remain tied up to the opinions we have Carozzi 1970). More immediately Woodward received from others and disbelieve every (1695), who had remained in the background while thing, tho' never so rational, if our received Hooke lived, came to the fore with his theory of histories doth not confirm them ... we Earth's dissolution during the Flood (see Davies should have no more to do but to learn what 1969, pp.74-83, and Ito 1988). they have thought fit to leave us: but this is Drake (1981, 1996) has argued that Hutton contrary to the Nullius in verba ofthis was greatly influenced by Hooke; certainly it Society" [i.e. "Take no man's word for it:" appears that Hutton had Hooke in mind in the motto of the Royal Society] (Waller dismissing the influence ofaxial shift and the power 1705, p.450). ofearthquakes as a cause of major change (Hutton Even if his work lost some of its focus in 1788, pp.222-223). Like Hooke, Hutton was not the , it cannot be denied that Hooke was the concerned with Creation and sought to understand first scientific geologist in the English-speaking nature in terms of natural events. Nevertheless, world, and herein lies his significance. Had he Hutton was more overtly religious (deistic) in his actually been able to test his views on polar wander approach and focused first on denudation and the and its effects on the Earth he would have found movement of material as part ofa cycle that them to be erroneous; but that does not make him maintained Earth as a habitable place (see also any less ofa scientist or less worthy ofour Woodward 1695); Hutton had little to say about recognition. fossils, which he took to be organic. Most important, Hooke, while more free with history than End Notes many of his time, still did not think Earth more than i. Hooke's geological work can be read in various a few thousand years old; Hutton, on the other editions. hand, denied the Mosaic time scale and so freed ii. In general, facsimile reproductions of Waller's geology from catastrophism. Hutton formulated a 1705 edition while authentic, are difficult to read view of nature that he believed exhibited "wisdom, (Westfall 1968; Brown 1971; Hooke 1978). Drake's system and consistency" (p.304) operating over an (1996) edition of Hooke's "Lectures and discourses "indefmite" time scale (p.30 1). Crucially, again ofearthquakes and subterraneous eruptions" has unlike Hooke, Hutton was successful in actually modem typeface and spelling, making it an easy demonstrating this system through the existence of read; it also contains an extensive biography and unconformities. Hutton's system provided a assessment ofhis work; however, this assessment 70 has its weaknesses - Drake is an unabashed Hooke Med, 15, 167-188. "booster" and the commentary frequently repeats 'Espinasse, M. (1956). Robert Hooke. (191 p.) misinterpretations and over-interpretations London: The Scientific Book Guild. contained in Drake (1981, 1983) and Drake and Garboe, A. (1958). The earliest geological treatise Komar (1983 : see Ranalli 1982, for some analysis). (1667) byNicolausSteno. (51p.)New The older facsimile editions all have excellent, brief York: St. Martin's Press. introductions. Westfall (1969) provides a realistic Geikie, A. (1905). Thefounders ofgeology. (486 assessment of Hooke's achievements and is well p.). New York: Dover Publications (1962 worth reading although, as a Newton scholar, edition). Westfall is on his best ground when discussing Gleick, J. (2003). . (272 p.). New Hooke's physics; Brown (1971) summarizes each York: Pantheon Books. lecture well; and Hooke (1978) reproduces, by way Gordon, M.E. (2003). Hooked on Hooke. , of introduction, Rossiter's (1935) pioneering 301, 1845. geological essay. All the facsimile reproductions Hooke, R. (1665). Micrographia: or some contain Waller's (1705) original biography. physiological descriptions ofminute bodies made by magnifying glasses with References Cited observations and inquiries thereupon. Andrade, E.N. (1950). Robert Hooke. Proceedings Reprint 196 I, J. Cramer (Ed.). (246 p.). ofthe Royal Society, ser.B, 137, 153-187. New York: Wheldon & Wesley, Ltd, and Brown, T.M. (1971). The posthumous works of Hafner Publishing Co. Robert Hooke, Containing his Cutler ian __. (1705). Discourses ofearthquakes, their Lectures and other discourses, read at the causes and effects, and histories ofseveral; meetings ofthe illustrious Royal Society. to which are annext, physical explications (572 p.). London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. ofseveral ofthe fables ofOvid's Carozzi, A.V. (1970). Robert Hooke, Rudolph Metamorphoses, very different from other Erich Raspe, and the concept ofe mythologick interpreters. London: Waller­ arthquakes. Isis, 61, 85-91. Royal Society. (See Waller, 1705, Westfall Davies, G.L. (1969). The Earth in decay. (390 p.). 1968, Brown 1971 , Hooke 1978, Drake New York: Science History Publications (a 1996.) division ofNeale Watson Publications, __. (1978). Discourses ofearthquakes and Inc.) subterraneous eruptions. (208 p.). New Drake, E.T. (1981). The Hooke imprint on the York: Amo Press (History of Geology Huttonian Theory. American Journal of Collection). Science, 281, 963-973. Hutton, J. (1788). Theory of the Earth; or, an __. (1983). Robert Hooke and the Huttonian investigation of the laws observable in the Theory: A discussion. Journal ofGeology, composition, dissolution, and restoration of 91,231-232 . land upon the globe. Transactions ofthe . (1996). Restless Genius: Robert Hooke and Royal Society ofEdinburgh 1(2): 209-304 His Earthly Thoughts. (400p.). New York: [Also in G.W. White, 1973, Contributions OUP. to the history ofgeology, Vol. 5: James __and Komar, P.D. (1981). A comparison of Hutton's System ofthe Earth, 1785; Theory the geological contributions ofNicolaus ofthe Earth, 1788; Observations on Steno and Robert Hooke. Journal of granite, 1794; Playfair's Biography of Geological Education, 29, 127-134. Hutton. New York: Hafner Press.] [Also __ and __. (1983). Speculations about the available at: http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu Earth: The role of Robert Hooke and / geographylhuttonlhutton.htm] others in the . History of Inwood, S. (2003). Theforgotten genius: the Geology, 2,11-16. biography ofRobert Hooke 1635-1703 Edwards, W.N. (1936, January 18). Robert Hooke (482 p.). San Francisco: MacAdam/Cage. as geologist and evolutionist. Nature, 137, Ito, Y. (1988). Hooke's cyclic theory oftbe earth in 96-97. the context ofseventeenth-century Eyles, V.A. (1958). The influence ofNicolaus England. British Journal for the Frstory of Steno on the development of geological Science, 21,295-3 14. science in Britain. Acta Hist Scient Nat 71 Jardine, L. (2004). The curious life ofRobert dissectum caput, et dissectus piscis ex Hooke: the man who measured London. canum genere (A shark's head dissected). (422 p.). New York: Harper Collins. (123 p.). Florentire : Ex typographia sub Lyell, C. (1830). Principles ofgeology, being an signo Stellre. [See Garboe 1958, attempt to explain the former changes of for geological extract.] theEarth's surface, by reference to causes . (1669). De solido intra solidum naturaliter now in operation, vol. 1. (511 p. ). Chicago: contento: Dissertationis prodromus. G.W. The University of Chicago Press. [1990 White, 1968, Contributions to the history of facsimile edition] science, volume 4. Nicolaus Steno O'Connor, J.J. and Robertson, E.F. (2004). Robert Prodromus ofa dissertation concerning a Hooke. Biographies Index, The MacTutor body. [Reprint, Dissertation History ofMathematics Archive, School of concerning a solid body enclosed by a Mathematics and Statistics, University of process of nature within a sol id, an English St. Andrews: http://www-gap.dcs.st­version with an introduction and and.ac.ukl-historyl explanatory notes by John Garrett Winter: Oldroyd,D.R., (1989).Geological controversy in the New York, The Macmillan Company, Seventeenth Century: 'Hooke vs Wallis' and 1916] (125 p.). New York: Hafner its aftermath. pp. 207-234. In M. Hunter & Publishing Company, Inc. S. Schaeffer (Eds.), (1989). Robert Hooke: Waller, R. (1705). The posthumous works ofRobert new studies. Woodbridge England: The Hooke, Containing his Cutler ian Lectures Boydell Press. and other discourses, read at the meetings Ranalli, G. (1982). Robert Hooke and the Huttonian ofthe illustrious Royal Society. (572 p.). Theory. Journal ofGeology, 90, 319-325. Sam Smith and Benj. Walford, Princes Rappaport, R. (1986). Hooke on earthquakes: Arms in St. Paul's Church-yard London. lectures, strategy and audience. British Westfall, R.S. (1969). The posthumous works of Journalfor the History ofScience, 19, 129­ Robert Hooke, with a new introduction by 146. Richard S. Westfall. (572p.). New York: Raspe, R.F. (1763). Specimen historiae naturalis Johnson Reprint Corporation, The Sources globi terraquei . .. A.N. Iversen & A.V. of Science No. 73. Carozzi (trans., eds.), 1970. An introduction Winter, J.G. (1916). Introduction: The life of to the ofthe terrestrial Nicolaus Steno" p.175-187 in G.W. White, sphere, principally concerning new islands 1968. Contributions to the history of bornfrom the sea and Hooke's hypothesis science, volume 4. Nicolaus Steno of the Earth on the origin ofmountains and Prodromus ofa dissertation concerning a petrified bodies to be further established solid body. [Reprint, Dissertation from accurate descriptions and concerning a solid bodyenclosed by a observations. (191 p.). New York: Hafner process ofnature within a solid, an English Publishing Company. version with an introduction and Rossiter, A.P. (1935). The first English geologist: explanatory notes by John Garrett Winter. Robert Hooke (1635-1703). Durham New York, The Macmillan Company, University Journal 29: 172-181. [Reprinted 1916] (125 p.). New York, Hafner in, Robert Hooke, 1978, Lectures and Publishing Company, Inc. discourses ofearthquakes and Woodward, J. (1695/1978). An essay towards a subterraneous eruptions (History of natural history ofthe Earth. (277 p.). New Geology Collection). (208 p.). New York: York: Arno Press (History of Geology Arno Press] Collection). Steno, N. (1667). Elementorum myologire Young, D.A. (1987). Scripture in the Hands of specimen, seu musculi descriptio Geologists, Part 1: Westminster Theological geometrica: cui accedunt Canis carcharire Journal, 49, 1-34.

Keith Montgomery is Chair of Geography-Geology in the UW Colleges and a Professor of Geography at University of Wisconsin - Marathon County, 518 South 7th. Avenue, Wausau WI 54401. Email: [email protected].

72