Exploring our archives

A vaguely Valentine’s Day related post today

Observing the transit of Venus, the time at which the planet passes between the sun and earth, is a constant feature of the early records of the Royal Society, who received correspondence from around the world recording the precise times at which it was observed. The purpose of this romantic exercise, similarly to the mapping of the transits of Mercury, was to make observations relating to the position of the sun and planet, using the parallax method. This was pioneered by Edmund Halley, who explains the theory in Philosophical Transactions (translated here for those not keen to read the original in Latin). Mapping transits also has practical applications in navigation as it provides a natural clock with the aid of which longitudes, still a thorny problem in the seventeenth and eighteenth century due to the dearth of reliable timekeepers, could be calculated according to the difference in time between locations on a reference meridian. Perhaps this explains the interest of the East India Company, who allowed Halley to visit St Helena, where he built an observatory, the remains of which can still be observed on the island.

Halley’s work promoted international collaboration between scientists as well as voyages of exploration: most notably Captain Cook’s voyage to Tahiti to observe the 1769 transit. Romantics will have to wait a while to emulate the early stargazers, however, as the next transit is predicted to be visible in 2012.

Comments :0

Malaria is a major health problem and is thought to be responsible for about 18% of all deaths of children aged under five years in sub-Saharan Africa, or between 700 000 and 900 000 children each year, as well as aiding the spread of other diseases such as HIV/AIDS by weakening the immune system. Trials to develop an effective vaccine are ongoing. However, treatments using the anti-malarial properties of the bark of the chinconcha tree have been known for centuries, and used for many years against the disease until its active ingredient, quinine, began to be produced artificially.

The folio records a letter from the Royal Society’s prolific correspondent and later member Henri Justel, which mentions ‘Jesuits Bark’, the name being given to the bark of the Peruvian chinconcha tree. The letter does not survive, but the bark was not forgotten and together with numerous other substances it was boiled together with water, spirit of wine and white wine (RB. 6. 213, 1685) in Mr Pappin’s ‘digesting’ machine. Impressed, Pappin reported back that the bark lasted three or four time longer than bones before being reduced to a powder. There is no mention of the medical properties of the bark here, however, and the next reference to it in the Royal Society records occurs in the Philosophical Transactions of 1737/8. By this time the bark is clearly in demand: the author Dr Grey gives detailed information about the four different types of tree in Peru, their various effects and preparations, and reports that the drug enters Europe through Panama. He goes on to express concern that the exploitation by the Spanish will soon wipe out the local indigenous population who had been well aware of the anti-malarial properties of the plant well before the arrival of the colonisers, and that the bark will become scarce due to over-exploitation.

Anti-malarial drugs and the development of insecticides that kill the mosquitos carried the disease were of course a valuable tool in the exploration and final colonisation of Africa by European powers during the next century. This provided impetus for the identification of the parasite of the genus Plasmodium and the artificial production of quinine. Concerns like those expressed by Grey about the availability and intellectual property surrounding anti-malarial drugs still exist today. Problems with malaria prevention include the tendency for insects to develop resistance to insecticides like DDT, as well as their potentially negative environmental and health effects. The Royal Society has continued to engage with the problem of malaria: Hiliary Ranson is currently conducting research into the DNA of insecticide-resistant plasmodium in an attempt to evolve a method of blocking the process of development of resistance. Her research is demonstrated by this interactive tool. The recent winner of the Royal Society’s Pfizer Award, Dr Alex Nzila has taken a different approach: focusing on drug resistance in humans, he has shown that resistance can be reduced by combining an existing anticancer drug, methotrexate, with folic acid.

Comments :0

Well, we are still not exactly sure! As Lisa Jardine and Robyn Adams wrote in their recent article in Notes of Records of the Royal Society the folio was found under mysterious circumstances. It has been indexed to some extent by Hooke’s posthumous editor William Derham. Based on the original inscription on the cover, Derham suggests that the first hundred pages are extracts from the Journal Books, the official record of meetings, during the period in which Henry Oldenburg was Secretary of the Royal Society. The rest of the manuscript, which runs to 635 pages in total appears to consist of original minutes from the period during which Robert Hooke was Secretary, 1677-1682 with a few additional pages from 1691.

The original minutes of the Royal Society are preserved in the archives, with the exception of the period in which Hooke was Secretary, for which there are binders left empty for the missing pages. It seems, however, that the Royal Society did have some of Hooke’s minutes: in February 1682 the Council demanded that he ‘deliuer up into the hands of either of the Secretary’s all such Books and Papers as any way belong to the society or came to his hands upon the account of his being Secretary’ and later that Spring a committee was appointed to meet in the Repository and correct omissions and mistakes in the journal books. Minutes of a council meeting the next year report having ’stichted paper books of Minutes taken by Mr Hook they begin the 25^th of October 1677 and end the 23^rd of February 1680/1′. Also in their possession ‘Another bound book of Mr. Hookes minutes, about ¼ full, it begins March 1680/1 and ends July 26 1682′. Finally, the council ‘Resolved that the minutes of the Mr Hooke be written into books suiting with the rest’.

So, the mystery deepens. These council minutes imply that at the original copy of the minutes was in the hands of the Council and, if their instructions were carried out, there would have been an additional copy to be entered in the records. Did Hooke reclaim his notes at some point after this, and if so, for what purpose?

Comments :0

Hi I’m Anna. I’m working with Jenni on transcribing the Hooke folio together with CELL and the archives team at the Royal Society. We are transcribing using the exciting new software Transcription Workbench, using Python, which should let you view the finished product in various different formats, depending whether you want a record of all the original ink blots and doddles, or just a readable version in modern(ish) English.
When I’ve finished looking at this fascinating (and huge!) document, I will go on to look at the connections of the Royal Society with the East India Company and the role of voyages of exploration and discovery. This fits in with my previous interest in Indian Ocean history, which I researched while at the British Institute in Eastern Africa, as well as work at the Science Museum and a rather geeky interest in modern science and web technology, which I write about here.

We will be writing here about things we find interesting in the folio and the other documents we are looking at, whether in terms of how we can relate them to themes or debates in modern science, the point of view of the early history of the Society itself, or the wider history of the period that the folio covers (1667-1691). We’ll also be telling you about the trials, tribulations and highlights of the transcription process itself. Please get back to us with any comment, thoughts or suggestions for the direction of future rants!

Comments :0