Abstract
THE reviewer of “The Diary of Robert Hooke” is criticised by Mr. T. E. James for his description of Henry Oldenburg as an “oblique, intriguing and toadying individual”. Mr. James ascribes the absence of Hooke's portrait in the Royal Society to Hooke's “fickle physical condition” probably making him a difficult ‘sitter’. Dr. R. T. Gunther complains of the statement that the biographer, Richard Waller, “apparently had little personal knowledge of Hooke”, and points to the recently published later diaries, which indicate that Waller was frequently in the company of Hooke. The reviewer, Prof. E. N. da C. Andrade, gives some of the historical evidence upon which he has based his unfavourable opinion of Oldenburg and asks for counter-evidence. He directs attention to diary entries which suggest that a painting of Hooke by “Bonust” may perhaps be in existence.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Points from Foregoing Letters. Nature 136, 609 (1935). https://doi.org/10.1038/136609b0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/136609b0
This article is cited by
-
Spectrum Analysis
Nature (1935)