Hooke and his Editors

Abstract

DR. GUNTHER'S latest publication is distinguished by a preface containing so many questionable statements that a full consideration of it, desirable as it may be, is not possible here. I gather from it that he considers himself aggrieved that Mr. Robinson was allowed by the Guildhall Library, owners of the manuscript, to publish, with the collaboration of Mr. Adams, the Hooke Diary recently noticed in these columns. Some of the sentences are so obscure that they cannot be refuted, as when he says of the Guildhall manuscript: “This had lain sterile and unused for some forty years, and I was naturally desirous of adding a transcript to this edition of Hooke's Collected Works. The requisite permission, however, was refused by Mr. Owthwaite” (the misspelling of Mr. Douthwaite's name is an unfortunate, but no doubt unintentional, inaccuracy) “although he has given permission to Dr. P. Pelseneer of Brussels, to Mr. MacPike, of Chicago, and to Mr. Robinson”. Permission to do what; add a transcript to this edition of Hooke's works? He then proceeds, in a manner that coming from anybody but a scholar of Dr. Gunther's repute would be offensive, to take the Royal Society to task for making a grant in aid of publication of the Guildhall diary. “The Council of the Royal Society has, however, made a charitable grant of £100 to the worthy firm of Messrs. Taylor and Francis, printers, towards their expense in printing a work, the copyright of which is claimed by the Guildhall Librarian.” Why “claimed”: is there any doubt as to the ownership of the manuscript, which is what is in question? Finally, he adds that, had he, Dr. Gunther, been entrusted with the editorship, many advantages would have accrued to the public, not the least being that “the text now printed would have been more correct”.

Early Science in Oxford

By R. T. Gunther. Vol. 10: The Life and Work of Robert Hooke (Part 4); Tract on Capillary Attraction, 1661; Diary, 1688 to 1693. Pp. xliv + 294. (Oxford: Dr. R. T. Gunther, Museum of the History of Science, 1935.) 21s.