罗伯特.胡克，有没有肖像存世，最初就是一个未知数

------这可是“Newton destroyed a portrait of Hooke”的基础

https://blogs.royalsociety.org/history-of-science/2010/12/03/hooke-newton-missing-portrait/  Hooke, Newton, and the ‘missing’ portrait  3 December 2010  by Felicity Henderson

Portraits have a peculiar fascination for people. As Lisa Jardine pointed out recently, historical figures come to life so much more vividly when a portrait is available. This is true for historians almost as much as anyone else. Therefore the thought that there might be an undiscovered or lost portrait of a famous and controversial figure like Robert Hooke is extremely tantalising. It also grips the public imagination – several visitors to the Royal Society’s 350th anniversary exhibition over the summer commented, ‘they say Newton destroyed a portrait of Hooke’. Indeed ,’they’ do say this.  The final scene in the 2009 Royal Shakespeare Company production ‘The Tragedy of Thomas Hobbes’ showed Newton slashing a portrait, a reference that shows how familiar this story has become.

肖像画对人们有着特殊的魅力。正如丽莎·贾丁（Lisa Jardine）最近所指出的那样，当一幅肖像画可用时，历史人物会更加生动。这对历史学家来说几乎和其他人一样。因此，人们认为可能存在像罗伯特·胡克这样的着名和有争议的人物未被发现或丢失的肖像是非常诱人的。这也影响了公众的想象力 - 夏季皇家学会350周年纪念展的几位参观者评论道，“他们说牛顿摧毁了胡克的肖像”。确实，'他们'确实这么说。 2009年皇家莎士比亚剧团制作的“托马斯·霍布斯的悲剧”中的最后一幕展示了牛顿大幅削减肖像，这一参考文献显示了这个故事的熟悉程度。

So the question is, did Newton do it? He seems to have had both motive and opportunity. His relations with Hooke had turned sour in 1686 following controversy over Hooke’s contributions to Newton’s theory of gravity. After Hooke’s death in 1703 Newton was elected President of the Royal Society (‘they’ also say he waited until Hooke had died before becoming more active in the Society). Newton oversaw the Society’s move to a new premises in Crane Court, and it is assumed that the portrait went missing during this move. Finally, Newton was a ruthless and overbearing character who held grudges – or so they say.

所以问题是，牛顿做了吗？他似乎有动机和机会。在胡克对牛顿引力理论的贡献引发争议后，他与胡克的关系在1686年变坏了。在胡克于1703年去世后，牛顿被选为皇家学会会长（'他们也说他等到胡克去世之后才变得更加活跃于学会）。牛顿监督了该协会搬迁到Crane Court的新址，并假设这一行动中的肖像丢失了。最后，牛顿是一个无情和傲慢的角色，他抱怨 - 或者他们说。

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.

但在我们宣布牛顿犯有摧毁皇家学会财产的罪行之前，我们需要考虑一个基本问题，即胡克的肖像是否存在于一开始。关于这一点的证据都不是真正的结论。有两个证据表明有一幅肖像。第一部分来自胡克的日记或备忘录，其中他从1670年代到1690年代长期记录了他的日常生活。在1674年10月16日的一篇文章中，他写了“At Garaways”。停止吸烟 - 博斯特先生画了一张照片。'加拉威是一个咖啡馆，很受胡克的欢迎，但'博斯特先生'是一个相当神秘的人物，只出现在日记中。日记的第一批编辑提出，这是一个“Bownest”，其出任部长亚瑟·杰克逊的肖像以大卫·洛根的雕刻形式安置在国家肖像画廊。胡克对艺术感兴趣，并拜访了各种画家，包括描绘他的朋友和同事罗伯特博伊尔的玛丽比尔，以及胡克的朋友理查德沃勒（他自己是一位多才多艺的艺术家）的母亲玛丽摩尔。然而，如果鲍内斯特先生确实在1674年画出胡克的照片，这是胡克对它的唯一参考。

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,

第二个证据是描述1710年德国旅行家Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach访问皇家学会的场所。像当时许多其他具有科学头脑的旅行者一样，冯·乌芬巴赫热衷于看到着名的皇家学会 - 但现实对他来说是一种严重的失望。在Gresham学院展示了知识库和会议室之后，他在旅行期刊中轻描淡写地写道，

“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.”

“最好的乐器和其他文章[谎言]。 。 。不仅没有任何秩序或整洁，而是覆盖着灰尘，污物和煤烟，其中许多破碎而且彻底毁了。如果一个人询问什么，那个向陌生人展示的操作员。 。 。通常会说：“一个流氓把它偷走了”，或者他会告诉你它的碎片，说：“它被腐蚀或破坏了”;这就是他们对事物的关心！ 。 。 。最后，我们看到了协会通常会面的房间。它非常小而且很悲惨，其中最好的东西是其成员的肖像，其中最值得注意的是Boyle和Hoock的肖像。“

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’.

Von Uffenbach，一位外国访问者，简短地展示了该协会的会议室，是唯一一个提到胡克肖像的人。詹姆斯·尤格（James Yonge）于1702年11月访问该协会，当时当选为FRS，在委员会会议室录制了“潜水员原始照片”。他列出了十一幅肖像画，包括罗伯特·博伊尔和西奥多·哈克的作品，但胡克并不在其中。如果在那里，Yonge似乎不太会忽视胡克的画面。胡克是Yonge在该协会的第一次接触：这两个人已经通信多年，而Yonge在他的日记中将胡克称为“我的老朋友”。

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.

我们可能期望找到胡克肖像的其他来源在这个问题上是奇怪的沉默。胡克在他去世后的财产清单中不包括肖像。理查德沃勒在胡克的论文序言中写了胡克的第一本传记，在胡克去世两年后出版，从未提及肖像。胡克的第二个遗腹编辑威廉·德哈姆也没有。如果画像确实存在，则没有证据表明它已经送给了皇家学会。该协会的会议纪要，通常（但不总是！）记录的肖像等礼物，对胡克的肖像一无所知，在此期间也没有任何其他捐赠清单。胡克本人，他非常保护他的科学声誉和声望，从未谈到将自己的肖像捐赠给该协会。

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.

没有任何确凿证据必须对冯·乌芬巴赫声称在1710年在格雷沙姆学院看到胡克的肖像表示怀疑。他是否展示了西奥多·哈克的肖像并听错了这个名字？胡克是更着名的研究员，而冯·乌芬巴赫可能认为该协会有他的肖像。我想我们可以说尽管胡克可能已经拍了照片，但它不太可能挂在Gresham学院的学会会议室里。和牛顿？他绝对是摆脱困境的。

Royal Society's portrait of Theodore Haak

       Haak, not Hooke

PS. If you have any evidence to the contrary we’d love to hear it, otherwise follow this link to see some portraits which allegedly feature Robert Hooke.

皇家学会的西奥多哈克肖像

哈克，不是胡克

PS。如果您有任何相反的证据，我们很乐意听到它，否则请点击此链接查看一些据称以Robert Hooke为特色的肖像。