Oeuvres complètes. Tome VII. Correspondance 1670-1675

N^o 2076.
R. Hooke¹⁾.
1676.
Appendice II au No. 2074.

The Publisher of Transations in that of October 1675. indeavours to cover former injuries done me by accumulating new ones, and this with so much passion

1) La pièce qui suit forme le ‘Postscript’ de l'ouvrage:
Lampas: Or, Descriptions of some Mechanical Improvements of Lamps & Waterpoises. Together with some other Physical and Mechanical Discoveries. Made by Robert Hooke, Fellow of the Royal Society. London, Printed for John Martyn, Printer to the Royal Society, at the Bell in St. Paul's Church-yard. 1677. in-4^o.
C'est le quatrième écrit de la collection citée dans les Lettres N^os. 2025, note 8, 2000 note 3, 1989, note 1, et 1363, note 6.
Ici encore le millésime du titre est fautif, puisque Oldenburg annonça sa réponse dans les Phil. Trans. N^o. 128, du 25 septembre 1676 [V. st.], en ces termes:
‘Advertisement, Tointimate, that the Publisher of this Tract intends to take another opportunity of Justifying himself against the Aspersions and Calumnies of an immoral Postscript put to a Book called Lampas, publisht by Robert Hooke: Till which time, 'tis hoped the Candid Reader will suspend his Judgment’.
Voir la réponse d'Oldenburg dans l'Appendice III, N^o. 2077.

[p. 539]

as with integrity to lay by discretion; otherwise he would not have affirmed, that it was as certain that none of my Watches succeeded, as it was that I had made them several years ago; For how could he be sure of a Negative? Whom I have not acquainted with my Inventions, since I looked on him as one that made a trade of Intelligence.

Next where as he says I made them without publishing them to the world in Print, he prevaricates, and would have it believed that they were not published to the world, though they were publickly read of in Sir John Gutlers Lectures before great numbers at several times, and though they were made and shewn to thousands both English and Foreiners, and writ of to several persons absent, and though they were in the year 1665. in the History of the Royal Society published to the world in Print²⁾ because forsooth, they were not printed in his Transactions.

Thirdly, whereas the Publisher of Transactions makes a long story of my seeing in his Journal De Sçavans, and my desire to transcribe that part of it which concerned this matter, as if I had requested some singular favour thereby. I answer,

First that he knew I designed presently to have printed it with Animadversions, but he endeavoured to prevent me, designing first clancularly to get a Patent of it for himself, and thereby to defraud me.

Next, I say, I had a right without his favour to have seen, perused, and copied it, as I was one of the Royal Society, the intelligence he there brings in being the Societies.

Then it is denied that the Describer of Helioscopes well knew that the Transcriber of Intelligence would publish it in his Transactions, though it was believed if the publishing it would injure me it would not be long concealed; which was the sole reason of Printing in the same Transactions, viz. 112. a Letter which he had several years before³⁾.

Thirdly, whereas he asserts that several discourses of the Accuser had been vindicated from the usurpation of others. It is answered, the clean contrary is upon good grounds suspected from the Publication of a Book about Earthquakes, Petrifactions, &c. Translated and Printed by H.O. the manner of doing which is too long for this place. Such ways this mis-informer hath for vindicating discoveries from the usurpation of others⁴⁾.

2) Voir, sur cette publication, la Lettre N^o. 2067, note 14, où nous avons reproduit tout ce que l'History de Sprat contient au sujet des montres de Hooke.

3) Le N^o. 112 des Phil. Trans., du 25 mars 1675 [V. st.], contient l'extrait de deux lettres d'ancienne date, l'une de Swammerdam, du 9 octobre 1674, sur une rupture du mésentère, l'autre de Martin Lister, du 19 janvier 1673/4 [V. st.], contenant ses observations sur les Astroïtes ou pierres étoilées.

4) Hooke parle du livre mentionné par Birch (History T. III, p. 355), dans une nécrologie très sympathique envers Oldenburg, en ces termes: ‘In 1671, he published in 8vo. an English translation from the Latin original, printed in Italy, of A Prodromus to a Dissertation concerning Solids naturally contained within Solids: laying a foundation for the rendering a rational Account both of the frame and the several Changes of the Mass of the Earth: as also of the various Productions of the same: by Nicolaus Steno.’ Oldenburg a rendu compte de ce livre dans les Phil. Trans. N^o. 72, du 19 juin 1671 [V. st.].
L'ouvrage de Steno (Steen, Niels Stensen, voir la Lettre N^o. 1078, note 20) est intitulé:
Nicolai Stenonis de solido intra solidum naturaliter contento dissertationis prodromus. Ad serenissimum Ferdinandum II, magnum Etruriae ducem. Lugduni Batavorum mdc.lxxix in-18^o.
C'est une réimpression, l'ouvrage original ayant déjà paru en Italie, en 1669.
Elie de Beaumont a donné un extrait de ce livre dans les Annales des Sciences naturelles, 1831, Tome XXV, p. 337. Il y cite Alexander von Humboldt, qui, dans son ‘Essai géognostique sur le gisement des roches dans les deux hémisphères’ s'exprime sur l'ouvrage de Steno en ces termes: ‘Presque à la même époque (celle des travaux de Lister, géologue anglais, 1638-1712) Nicolas Stenon (de Solido intra Solidum contento, 1669) distingua les roches (primitives) antérieures à l'existence des plantes et des animaux sur le globe et ne renfermant, par conséquent, jamais des débris organiques, et les roches (secondaires) superposées aux premières et remplies de ces débris (turbidi maris sedimenta sibi invicem imposita). Il considère chaque banc de roche secondaire comme un sédiment déposé par un fluide aqueux et exposant un système entièrement semblable à celui de Deluc ‘sur la formation des vallées par des affaissements longitudinaux et sur l'inclinaison de couches d'abord horizontales’, il admet pour le sol de Toscane à la manière de nos géologues modernes ‘six grandes époques de la nature (sex distinctae Etruriae facies, ex presenti facie Etruriae collectae) selon que la mer inonda périodiquement le continent ou qu'elle se retira dans ses anciennes limites.’ Elie de Beaumont remarque que l'ouvrage de Steno renferme des aperçus fort justes et très remarquables pour l'époque sur la structure et le mode d'accroissement des coquilles et sur la structure des cristaux de quartz et de fer oxydé et sulfuré.
Le livre traduit par Oldenburg contenait donc des découvertes très importantes et marquait une nouvelle époque dans l'étude de la croûte terrestre.
On comprendra maintenant la sortie de Hooke contre Oldenburg, au sujet de sa traduction, lorsqu'on sait que Hooke, dans ses Cutlerian Lectures, avait traité ces sujets (voir les Posthumous Works, décrits dans la pièce N^o. 2067, note 8, Discourses of Earth-quakes).

[p. 540]

To his upbraiding me with his having published some things of Mine; I answer, he hath so, but not so much with mine as with his own desire, and if he send me what I think worth publishing I will do as much for him, and repay him in his own coyn.

Lastly whereas he makes use of We and Us ambiguously, it is desired he would explain whether he means the Royal Society, or the Pluralities of himself. If the former, it is not so, as I can prove by many Witnesses; if the later, I neither know what he is acquainted with, or what has been imparted or explained to him.

So not designing to trouble my self any further with him, unless he gives me occasion, I dismiss him with his:

Speque metuque

Procul hinc procul ito. Ho.