Newton鈥檚 Tyranny: The Suppressed Scientific Discoveries of Stephen Gray and
John Flamsteed by David Clark and Stephen P. H. Clark, W. H. Freeman,
拢15.95, ISBN 0716742152
ADVERSARIAL histories of science, in which an underdog genius receives rough
treatment at the hands of the 鈥渟cientific establishment鈥�, have enjoyed
considerable popularity in the wake of Dava Sobel鈥檚 Longitude (1996).
But while adversarial books can make for gripping reading and serve an excellent
purpose in encouraging people to take an interest in the history of science,
professional historians tend to be wary of them. The past, no less than the
present, cannot be understood in terms of black and white.
So it might come as a surprise to Sobel鈥檚 readers to learn of Isaac Newton鈥檚
appalling treatment of several of his colleagues, including Robert Hooke and
John Flamsteed. His behaviour has been explored in several scholarly works over
the past few decades, including Lesley Murdin鈥檚 Under Newton鈥檚 Shadow
(1985) and my own book Introduction and Notes to the Preface of John
Flamsteed鈥檚 Historia Coelestis Britannica (1982). As his fame increased
after the publication of Principia in 1987, Newton became very aware of
his burgeoning international status and extremely alert in the defence of his
intellectual territory.
Advertisement
Much recent historical scholarship has been concerned with interpreting
scientific history within a broader cultural context. This can teach us a lot
more than a simple narrative about venerable geniuses who 鈥済ot it right鈥�, in
contrast with a lumpen proletariat of also-rans who either got it wrong, loyally
served the geniuses, or else鈥攈eaven forbid鈥攄ared to contradict
them.
Traditionally, Flamsteed has been put in the last of these categories: a
working observational astronomer whose churlishness irritated the great Newton,
and to whom history administered the sound whipping he deserved. The same
applies to Robert Hooke for daring to claim (quite justifiably, as we now know)
an important stake in the formulation of the inverse square law. And what could
a 鈥渉umble dyer鈥� like the astronomer and pioneer of electricity, Stephen Gray,
expect when he sided with Flamsteed in the face of the mighty Sir Isaac?
While in no way decrying the originality of Newton鈥檚 own achievements, David
Clark and Stephen Clark, the authors of Newton鈥檚 Tyranny, explore
Newton鈥檚 ill-treatment of his colleagues in this elegantly written and
accessible book.
We are told how in 1696 Newton tried to push the meticulous Flamsteed to
complete his Greenwich observations so that Newton could use them to perfect his
own lunar theory.
Yet Flamsteed would not release data with which he was not satisfied, nor
would he be bullied. Later, with his burgeoning fame, court connections, and the
presidency of the Royal Society behind him, Newton extracted observations from
Flamsteed on the pretext of publishing them officially.
But when Flamsteed鈥檚
foe and Newton鈥檚 friend Edmond Halley finally saw the observations into print in
1710, they were riddled with errors, and Halley鈥檚 Preface accused
Flamsteed of neglect.
Yet Flamsteed was the founder of modern coordinate astronomy, a pioneer of
instrument design and error analysis, and a physical scientist of genius in his
own right.
Gray, on the other hand, was a figure in more modest circumstances. But
though he was only a Canterbury tradesman, it is still likely he received a
classical education at the King鈥檚 School there, and he clearly enjoyed
sufficient leisure amid his business commitments to master mathematics and
astronomy, conduct fundamental researches into the transmission of electrical
currents, and write confident, educated letters.
I was therefore unhappy with the authors鈥� constant emphasis on Gray鈥檚
鈥渉umble鈥� circumstances. For though we do not know precisely why Gray鈥檚 dyeing
business failed, he nonetheless came from an established Canterbury family and
was a freeman of the city, while his brother became mayor. To claim that Gray鈥檚
contact with scientists like Flamsteed and Newton 鈥渨ould normally have been
beyond someone of so lowly a social station鈥� suggests a lack of familiarity with
17th-century social protocol.
In fact, all the leading figures in Newton鈥檚 Tyranny came from
similar social backgrounds: Newton鈥檚 father was a yeoman farmer, Flamsteed had a
brewer for a father, while Gray was the son of a dyer and Hooke鈥檚 father was a
clergyman. Each had been classically trained in a good grammar school.
And when, in his state of financial distress, Gray was admitted to London鈥檚
Charter House in 1719, it was as a 鈥済entleman pensioner鈥�. Does one really have
to play up the 鈥渉umbleness鈥� of the hero as a way of enhancing Newton鈥檚
conspicuous hauteur?
I wish that some of these matters had been examined in more detail, and also
that the book had given more extensive bibliographical information and
references for its quotations. On the other hand, I believe that Newton鈥檚
Tyranny opens up an aspect of Newton鈥檚 personal and professional conduct
that has not yet been looked at by the more accessible literature in the history
of science.