Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cambridge University Press and The British Society for the History of Science are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal for the History of Science.
http://www.jstor.org
BJHS, 1986,19,
129-146
Hooke on Earthquakes:Lectures,Strategyand
Audience
RHODA
RAPPAPORT*
130
Rhoda Rappaport
Just as coins and other 'lasting Monuments' testified to events in civil history, so did
fossils reveal episodes in the earth's history. A 'plastic virtue' could conceivably have
formed coins buried in the earth, but no antiquary would think so; and no natural
antiquary should invoke this explanation of fossils.
Hooke undertook in 1667-1668
In an important departure from the Micrographia,
to examine in detail those causes responsible for the burial of fossil shells deep below the
earth's surface, high on mountains, and far from modern seas. He quickly dismissed the
agency of the biblical Flood since it had 'lasted but a little while'. Among other available
causes, running water and 'the motions of the air' could also be discounted: these had
certainly altered the earth's surface features, but could not explain what seemed to be
3. Hooke: Micrographia. London, 1665; facsimile reprintwith prefaceby R.T. Gunther,NewYork, 1961,
p. 107-112. Hooke's earlier comments on fossils, at meetings of 17 June 1663 and 24 August 1664, are in
Thomas Birch, History of the Royal Society of London, 4 vols., London, 1756-1757, i, 260ff, 463. Hereafter:
Birch. For the dating of Hooke's 1667-1668 lectures, see remarksin Appendix, lecture 1.
4. The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke. Richard Waller, ed. London, 1705; facsimile reprint with
introduction by Theodore M. Brown, London, 1971, p. 318. 290-295. Hereafter: PW.
5. Ibid., pp. 327-328. Hooke had in mind variability within species and used such common examples as
the various breeds of sheep and dogs.
6. Ibid., p. 321; also, p. 319. For antiquarian interests in the Royal Society, see CecilJ. Schneer:'The rise of
Historical Geology in the Seventeenth Century'. Isis, (1954), 45, p. 256-268. For comparisons of coins and
fossils, see the discussion of 'monuments' in Rhoda Rappaport, 'Borrowed Words: Problemsof Vocabulary in
Eighteenth-Century Geology', Br. J. Hist. Sci. (1982), 15, p. 27-44.
132
Rhoda Rappaport
major dislocations of seas and land masses. Such large changes might have resulted from
past shifts in the earth's centre of gravity, but Hooke knew that he had no evidence for
this suggestion.7 There remained one mechanism, earthquakes, whose effects were
widespread and well documented. Hooke amassed examples from texts both ancient and
modern, to show that earthquakes were recorded in many areas of the world and that
observers had noted such effects as the elevation and depression of tracts of land. Since
written records of such events could not be found for all periods and places, Hooke
allowed that his theory was thus 'very hard positively to prove'. But the evidence
nonetheless seemed sufficient to render his ideas 'more than probable'.8
After 1668, Hooke now and then found occasion to referto his earlierviews, notably
in the famous Cutler lecture of 1678, Of Spring, where a long digression deals with the
role of earthquakes in the history of the globe.9 His intensive lecturing on topics
geological did not resume until the end of 1686, however, and then the texts are almost
wholly reminiscent of his 1667-1668 lectures. Here again we find the main topics
Hooke would insist upon until 1700: the evidence for the organic nature of fossils, the
role of earthquakes in the burial of organisms, the insistence that fossils are as trustworthy a record of the natural past as are coins and medals for civil history.
These renewed lectures of 1686 also contain Hooke's firstcomments on discord in his
audience, discord so serious that he felt impelled to reflect on the basic problem of
induction. He actually began with the disarming statement that he would defend the
Society against critics who charged the Society with devotion to the mere collecting of ' a
rude heap of unpolish'd and unshap'd Materials'. On the contrary,Hooke declared, such
collections were essential to the process of induction. In 'Physical Inquiries', he explained, it was inappropriate to use the deductive method of geometers; instead, one had
to frame hypotheses and then test or modify these by amassing experiments and observations.
So that tho' possibly we may not be able to produce a Positive Proof, yet we may attain to that of a
Negative, which in many cases is as cogent and undeniable, and none but a willful or senseless Person will
refuse his assent unto it10
Despite the ostensible purpose of this preamble, Hooke in fact echoed here sentiments he
had earlier expressed when he described his theory of earthquakes as 'more than
probable'. The same reasoning he now applied to the fossil question, examined as an
instance of seeking positive and negative proofs. Towards the end of his discussion,
Hooke's exasperation with critics of his own views at last became explicit. To those who
doubted that fossil shells were true shells, he could only say: 'I would willingly know
what kind of Proof will satisfie such his doubt'.
7. PW: p. 291, 312-313, 316, 320, 321-322.
8. Ibid., p. 324; also, p. 312. Accounts of earthquakes occupy p. 299-310. In addition to Oldroyd, op. cit.
(1), see Barbara J. Shapiro: Probability and Certainty in Seventeenth-CenturyEngland. Princeton, 1983, ch. 2,
passim.
9. 'Lectures De Potentia Restitutiva, or of Spring'. In R.T. Gunther: Early Science in Oxford, viii: The
Cutler Lectures of Robert Hooke. Oxford, 1931, p. 380-384. As in 1667-1668, Hooke again refersbriefly,p.
382, to possible changes in the earth's axis.
10. PW,p.329,331.
Hooke on Earthquakes
133
With such now as shall not think all, or any of these convincing Argumentsto prove them Shells, I cannot, I
confess, conceive what kind of Arguments will prevail, since these sensible Marks are, in all other things,
the Characteriicksts [sic] and Proofs by which to determine of their Nature and Relation, and why they
should not be allow'd to be so in this particular Case I cannot well conceive."1
134
Rhoda Rappaport
easily explicable Mechanically."8 Other Fellows clearly did not find the matter so easy,
and this kind of incomprehension may account for the tone of despair detectable in
Hooke's lectures in 1686.
Hooke's theory of earthquakes may have received a more cordial reception, at least
initially, within the Society. So many recent seismic disturbances had come to the
attention of the Fellows that they were at times willing to add to the examples Hooke
himself offered in his lectures. One element of dissent did occur at an early date, when
Seth Ward, bishop of Exeter, suggested that 'subterraneouscanals,' rather than earthquakes, might have allowed the transport of marine shells to burial places in the earth.'9
This possibility, also mentioned by other of Hooke's contemporaries,20seems not to have
stimulated Hooke to respond, but he took more seriously the kind of argumentraised by
Robert Plot in 1677. Examining the question of whether the earth's surface had been
repeatedly altered by floods or earthquakes, Plot denied any grounds for such ideas
because the historical evidence, 'the Records of time', contained little support for such
great and frequent 'concussions'.2' Hooke had, in fact, tried to anticipatesuch arguments
in 1667-1668 by acknowledging that written recordsof earthquakeswere rathersparse
before the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when curiosi were becoming more
numerous. But Hooke did not, at this early stage in his thought, deny the relevance of
written records, and he actually invited members of the Society to test his own views by
delving into ancient documents. The occasion of this invitation, late in 1686, was not a
discussion of earthquakes, but ratherof the presence in Englishstrataof great ammonites
without living analogues. If, said Hooke, the largest living organisms were typical of
tropical climates, then England might once have been tropical. Such climatic change
might be verified or rendered improbable if Fellows 'better versed in ancient Historians
than I ever have been or hope to be' did the requisite searching in ancient documents.22
Despite his doubts that written history would supply enough evidence to confirm his
ideas, Hooke never lost interest in this matter, and he would revive the subject late in
1687. Early in that year, however, he launched a new series of lectures that would, in
effect, circumvent the problem of a paucity of written records. In what may be called a
second series, Hooke tackled the possibility, earlier mentioned and dismissed, that there
had been alterations in the earth's centre of gravity and thus in the distribution of seas
and land masses on its surface. Why Hooke resurrected this subject at this time is
uncertain, but his lectures include an explicit attack on Thomas Burnet's recently
published views about the shape of the earth.23In addition, Hooke was aware of the fact
that Isaac Newton had sent to press a book dealing with such topics as had long
18. PW, p. 281.
19. Birch, ii, 183, entry dated 27 June 1667.
20. See, for example, Histoire de l'Academie royale des sciences, Paris, 1703 (1705), p. 22-24.
21. Plot, op. cit. (14), p. 113.
22. PW,p.343.
23. Reference to Burnet occurs rather late (ibid., p. 371), when Hooke had just decided to shelve
astronomy and begin his analysis of fables. Still later, Hooke read accounts of Burnet'stheoryof the earth to the
Societv; see Journal Books of the Royal Society (hereafter:JB), entries dated 12 December 1688, 19 December
1688, 9 January 1689 (N. S.). Among the many accounts of Burnet's most famous work, the article in the
Dictionary of Scientific Biography is convenient and accompanied by an excellent bibliography.
26. PW,p.345.
27. Ibid., p. 347.
28. In the Appendix, lectures 4-7. Analysis in Oldroyd, op. cit. (1), p. 127-129.
29. Text dated 1695, in PW, p. 536-540.
136
Rhoda Rappaport
138
Rhoda Rappaport
the biblical Flood, but his grasp of the principlesof Euhemerismis evident in his
justification for using Ovid's rather late text to reconstructthe history of earlier,
'fabulous' ages. His lectureson Ovidwould show
That this Mythologick History was a History of the Production, Ages, States and Changes that have
formerly happened to the Earth, partly from the Theory of the best Philosophy; partly from Tradition,
whether Oral or Written, and partly from undoubted History.41
41. PW, p. 384. For pagan floods as different from Noah's, ibid., p389,408; for a comparable refusal to
conflate pagan tales with the Tower of Babel, ibid., p. 395-396. On the one occasion when Hooke tried to
weave the Flood into his geological theories, he did allude to accounts in authors other than Moses that might
have some bearing on the Flood, ibid., p. 412.
42. Ibid., p. 374. Theodore M. Brown (ibid., p. 9) suggests that Hooke's use of fable may have been a reply
to Thomas Burnet. But Hooke had just referredto Burnet in a differentcontext, the earth's shape (above and n.
23), and his return to the subject of fable in 1693 is more plausibly a resultof his readingof Burnet'slaterwork
(see below) rather than Burnet's theory of the earth.
43. In the Appendix, lecture 9 and the preceding lecture for which there is no text. Hooke had earliertoyed
briefly with interpretations of the Atlantis myth and Ovid, PW,p. 308, 320, 323, but at that time he probably
thought he had enough evidence for earthquakes without pursuing the exegesis of fables. Hanno's voyage
probably took place in the fifth century B.C.
44. Ibid., p. 391. In the two examples of the Titans and Proserpine,I have actually used lecturesof 1693,
rather than 1687- 1688, since Hooke's method of exegesis did not change. There was, in fact, an earlierlecture
on Proserpine (ibid., p. 395), but the text seems not to have survived.
Hooke on Earthquakes
139
140
Rhoda Rappaport
Hooke on Earthquakes
141
53. The issue of lusus naturae occupies much of lecture 16 (in the Appendix) and part of a lecture
summarized in JB, entry dated 4 January 1699. The other topics mentioned are recurrentthemes in lectures 15,
17, 18, 23-27, and in other lectures during this period, recorded inJB and listed in the Appendix.
54. PW, p. 404.
55. Text in R. T. Gunther: Early Science in Oxford, vii: The Life and Work of Robert Hooke. Oxford,
1930, p. 774. Hooke's earlier remarks on amber are in Birch, iii, 75 (5 February1673) and 440 f (28 November
1678). Hooke's renewed interest was prompted by the reading to the Society of a letter on amber from J. P.
Hartmann, author of an earlier work on the same subject (JB, entries for 14 January,3 February,24 February
1697).
56. PW,p.433.
57. Ibid., p. 450.
142
Rhoda Rappaport
Hooke on Earthquakes
143
If opposition to Hooke's views on fossils waned as time went on, the theoryof
earthquakesdid not fare as well. Nor, indeed,didJohnRay'spresentationof a roughly
comparable theory-apparently not derivedfromHooke andnot as well developedor
supported-arouse any enthusiasm.62
Ray came at the problemas a tentativeway to
repair the damage done the earth'slandformsby weatheringanderosion.Althoughan
advocate of Design, Hooke basedno theoryon Design,but held fastto the 'morethan
probable' truth of a theory derivedfrom presentprocessesas appliedto past history.
Hooke's contemporariesclearlyhad a differentnotionof whatconstitutedproof.
APPENDIX
62. In addition to Rudwick, op.cit. (17), esp. p. 63-66, see Gordon L. Davies: The Earth in Decay: A
History of British Geomorphology, 1578-1878. London and New York, 1969, for the subjectof 'degradation'
without a mechanism for 'renewal' of the earth's landforms. For influentialopposition to Ray, see Buffon, op.
cit. (2). One would like to know more than Davies offers about the apparent incompatibility of the ideas of
immutable laws of nature and the irreversible processes of decay (chiefly denudation). Hooke did encounter
some equivocal opposition to the latter idea from John Evelyn (JB, 30 July 1690), but there is no evidence that
Hooke's notion of the diminishing intensity of earthquakes played any role in the general rejection of his
theory.
144
Rhoda Rappaport
Lectures
Chieftopics
1. 279-328
Fossils,earthquakes
Earthquakes
2. 365-370
Barometer
3. 329-345
Methodsof inquiry,
fossils, last pp. on
latitudes
Earth'saxis of
rotation,changes
in sea basins
Shapeof earth
Sametopic
Proposalson same
topic
4. 346-350
5. 350-354
6. 355-360
7. 360-362
8. 363-364
9. 371-376
10. 394 P2402
11. 377-384
12. 403-406
13. 407-410
14. 410-416
15. 428-433
Shapeof earth's
atmosphere
Hanno the
Carthaginian
Plato andHanno
Fablesin general;
Ovid
Ovid's
Metamorphoses,
book 1
Criticsof Hooke
Dates
Seriesended15 September1668, according
to PW,p. 328, butB, ii, 313 saysthe Society
resumedits meetingson 22 October1668,
aftera 10 weekrecess.It is assumedherethat
thefirstlectureintheseriescorrespondsto the
entryin B, ii, 183, dated27 June1667.
1678. Partof LecturesDe PotentiaRestitutiva,or of Spring,one of the Cutlerseries.
Textin Gunther,op. cit. (9),viii,p. 380-384.
28 May 1684. PW,p. 365; B, iv, 309. Waller
explainsthathe thoughtit suitableto addthis
text to the subjectof lecture8.
Probablythe six lecturesdeliveredin seven
weeksfrom8 December1686 to 19 January
1687 (N. S.),describedin B, iv, p. 511-521.
26 January1687, describedin B, iv, p. 521522. Confirmedby openinglinesof nextlecture.
2 February1687. PW,p. 350; B, iv, 523.
9 February1687. PW,p. 355; B, iv, 525.
23 February1687. B, iv, 527. PW,p. 360
datestext 16 February1687,a dateforwhich
thereis no entryin B.
9 March1687. PW,p. 363: B, iv,527.
2 November1687. B, iv, 551, verifiedinJB.
7 December1687.JB.B, iv, 555 saysthe
Societymeton 1 December.
14 December1687. B, iv, 557.
4 January1688.JB.
18. 402-403
Extinction, plastic
forces
Earthquakes in
the Leewards
Decay (old age) of
the earth
Earthquake in
Sicily, confirmed by
Ovid's fable of
Proserpine
Ovid: fable of
Phaeton
Same topic
7 June 1693.JB,
**
Ovid's
13 July1693. JB.
21. 384-385
P1
'gigantomachy'
Thomas Gale on
Giants, Hooke's reply
(not in the form
of a letter)
Ovid: fable of
Python
LaHire on fossils
French research on
earth's axis of
rotation
Amber
Amber
Amber
24. 438-441
P1
146
Rhoda Rappaport
Buriedbones, changes
in climate,
latitudes,landforms
Possiblechemical
causesof
earthquakes
Causesof
petrifactionsandof
theirdeposition
25. 441 P2Burialof ships,
446 P2 analysingtexts
reportingsuch
3 November1697.JB.
22 June1698.JB.
4 January1699.JB.
22 February1699.JB.
discoveries
26. 424-428
27. 436-438
Causesof
30 July1699, accordingto PW,p. 424. No
earthquakes,decay
of the earth;
relevantentryinJB, andthe chemicalexsome remarkson Ovid amplesdifferfromthoseof 22 June1698
(above).
10 January1700.JB.
of
Effects
earthquakes