This Yahoo answer citing this dead source (mirror) claims:

It may be a coincidence but the only known portrait of Hooke which had been housed in the President's office, was mysteriously lost as were the records of much of Hooke's work. In Newton's defense it could be argued that the lack of acknowledgment for Robert Hooke and his contribution to science could be blamed on Hooke himself.

This page even claims:

His feud with Issac Newton meant that when Newton took over as the President of the Royal Society he destroyed all the pictures of Hooke. However The Royal Society have kindly provided us with picture of some of the remaining sketches of Hooke to include in this page.

Was any of Hooke's works lost, and was Isaac Newton responsible for the loss?


1 Answer 1


Other sources only mention the portrait, but answers to this question question whether a portrait of Hooke even existed.

As does the Royal Society itself, despite quoting a visitor that mentioned Hooke's portrait. The visitor might have meant the portrait of Theodore Haak:

But before we pronounce Newton guilty of destroying Royal Society property, we need to consider the fundamental question of whether a portrait of Hooke existed in the first place. None of the evidence on this point is really conclusive. There are two pieces of evidence to suggest there was a portrait. The first comes from Hooke’s diary, or memorandum book, in which he recorded his daily life in some detail for long periods from the 1670s to 1690s. In an entry for 16 October 1674 he wrote ‘At Garaways. Left off taking tobacco — Mr Bonust drew picture.’ Garaways was a coffee-house much visited by Hooke, but ‘Mr Bonust’ is a rather mysterious figure who only appears once in the diary. The first editors of the diary suggested that this was one ‘Bownest’, whose portrait of ejected minister Arthur Jacksonis housed in the National Portrait Gallery in the form of an engraving by David Loggan. Hooke was interested in art, and visited various painters, including Mary Beale, who painted his friend and colleague Robert Boyle, and the miniaturist Mary Moore, mother of Hooke’s friend Richard Waller(himself an accomplished artist). However if Mr Bownest did draw Hooke’s picture in 1674, this is the only reference Hooke made to it.

The second piece of evidence is a description of a visit to the Royal Society’s premises in 1710 by a German traveller, Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach. Like many other scientifically-minded travellers of the day, von Uffenbach was keen to see the famous Royal Society – but the reality was a severe disappointment for him. After being shown the Repository and meeting rooms at Gresham College, he wrote dismissively in his travel-journal,

“the finest instruments and other articles [lie] . . . not only in no sort of order or tidiness but covered with dust, filth and coal-smoke, and many of them broken and utterly ruined. If one inquires after anything, the operator who shows strangers round . . . will usually say: ‘A rogue had it stolen away’, or he will show you pieces of it, saying: ‘It is corrupted or broken’; and such is the care they take of things! . . . Finally we were shown the room where the Society usually meets. It is very small and wretched and the best things there are the portraits of its members, of which the most noteworthy are those of Boyle and Hoock.”

Von Uffenbach, a foreign visitor briefly shown the Society’s meeting room, is the only person to make such a reference to Hooke’s portrait. James Yonge, who visited the Society in November 1702 and was elected FRS at the time, recorded seeing ‘divers original pictures’ in the Council Room. He listed eleven portraits, including those of Robert Boyle and Theodore Haak, but Hooke’s was not among them. It seems unlikely that Yonge would have overlooked Hooke’s picture if it was there. Hooke was Yonge’s first contact at the Society: the two men had corresponded for many years and Yonge referred to Hooke in his journal as ‘my old friend’.

Other sources in which we might expect to find a mention of Hooke’s portrait are curiously silent on the subject. The inventory of Hooke’s possessions after his death does not include a portrait. Richard Waller, who wrote the first biography of Hooke in the preface to his edition of Hooke’s papers, printed two years after Hooke’s death, never mentioned a portrait. Neither did Hooke’s second posthumous editor, William Derham. And if a portrait did exist, there is no evidence that it was given to the Royal Society. The minutes of the Society’s meetings, in which gifts such as portraits were often (but not always!) recorded, say nothing about a portrait of Hooke, and neither do any other lists of donations in the period. Hooke himself, who was very protective of his scientific reputation and prestige, never spoke of donating his own portrait to the Society.

The absence of any corroborating evidence must cast some doubt on von Uffenbach’s claim to have seen a portrait of Hooke at Gresham Collegein 1710. Was he shown Theodore Haak’s portrait and misheard the name? Hooke was the more famous Fellow and von Uffenbach may have assumed the Society had his portrait. I think we can say that although Hooke may have had his picture taken, it is unlikely to have been hanging in the Society’s meeting room at Gresham College. And Newton? He’s definitely off the hook.

...despite stating earlier that none of the evidence is conclusive, the Royal Society concludes with a definite. Also lending credence to Uffenbach's claim that property was lost (presumably including sketches), is that the article links to Theodore Haak are dead.

  • 4
    Or off the Hooke!
    – Lie Ryan
    Jan 19, 2015 at 9:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .