Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:58:25.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Flamsteed and The Origins of the Greenwich Astronomical Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2009

Eric G. Forbes
Eric G. Forbes
Affiliation:
(University of Edinburgh)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The work of the Greenwich Observatory throughout the three centuries of its existence has been characterized by the painstaking efforts of its eminent directors to attain an ever-increasing degree of precision in pinpointing the positions of the heavenly bodies, with a view to the improvement of the science of navigation. The pursuit of this purpose, in accordance with the express desire of its founder King Charles II, has been assisted by the steady improvement in the accuracy of the instruments with which it has been equipped, and these have naturally also been applied to investigating problems of a purely theoretical nature. Nevertheless, the tradition pioneered by the first Astronomical Observator (or Astronomer Royal) John Flamsteed (1646–1719) whom the King in 1675 charged with rectifying the coordinates and motions of the heavenly bodies, has remained predominantly practical and utilitarian.

Type
The Eva G. R. Taylor Lecture
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 1975 , pp. 251 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1Edward, Maunder, The Royal Observatory, Greenwich; a glance at its history and work (London, 1900), p. 316.Google Scholar
2Francis, Baily, An Account of the Rev.d John Flamsteed, the First Astronomer-Roval. etc. (London, 1835), p. 22.Google Scholar
3Derek, Howse, ‘The Tompion clocks at Greenwich and the dead-beat escapement, Part 1–1675–1678’, Antiquarian Horology, 7 (1970), 18–34.Google Scholar
4R.G.O. Mss., P.R.O. 44, ff. 2r–13v.Google Scholar
5John Flamsteed, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 7, No. 89 (1672), 5118–5124.Google Scholar
6John Flamsteed, Phil. Trans. R. Soc, 1 No. 21 (1667), 373.Google Scholar
7Flamsteed's own summary of the Gascoigne-Crabtree correspondence is preserved in R.G.O. Mss., P.R.O. 40, ff. 9v–22v.Google Scholar
8Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2 No. 29 (1667), 541–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2 1 No. 25 (1667), 457–458.Google Scholar
10Op. tit., 5.Google Scholar
11Op. tit 8, No. 96 (1673), 6094–6100.Google Scholar
12Hevelius's own copy of this Latin epistle of 24 June 1676 is published together with other relevant correspondence with Flamsteed, Oldenburg, and others, in his Annus Climactericus (Gedani, 1685) . Cf. pp. 67–74.Google Scholar
13Hevelius to Flamsteed, 2 January [New Style] 1677, his Annus Climactericus (Gedani, 1685) . Cf. pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
14R.G.O. Mss., P.R.O. 38; ff. 15r–24r (Lecture 2 of 4 May 1681), and ff. 26r–34v Lecture 3 of 11 May 1681).Google Scholar
15Details of these results, and Flamsteed's investigation of this comet's motion, are contained in the Introduction to my edition of his Cresham Lectures, to be published shortly by Mansell Ltd., London.Google Scholar
16The Latin original, dated 8 July [Old Style] 1679, was published in op. cit., 12, pp. 101–102 ; also, in Eugene MacPike Correspondence and Papers of Edmond Halley (London, 1937), pp. 42–43. An English summary of its contents is contained in MacPike Hevelius, Flamsteed and Halley(London, 1937), pp. 85–88.Google Scholar
17These are discussed by Flamsteed in op. cit., 14; Lecture 13 (4 May 1682), ff. 132r–138vGoogle Scholar
18These are discussed by Flamsteed in op. cit., 14; Lecture 14 ( 11 May 1682), f. 146v.Google Scholar
19Flamsteed to Towneley, 25 November 1673, in Royal Society Mss. LIX.c.10, F.1.2.Google Scholar
20This warrant was dated 4 March 1674–5. The Original is preserved at the Public Record Office, London, among State Papers Domestic 44, p. 10. See also Baily, op. cit. 2, pp. 111–112Google Scholar
21Cornelius Malvasia, Ephemerides novissimae motuum coelestium … ad longitudinem urbis Mutinacetc. (Mutinae, 1662).Google Scholar
22Halley's trigonometrical demonstration of this fact was communicated in a letter from Flamsteed to Towneley dated 29 April 1675, in op. cit., 19, F. 1.5.Google Scholar
23Robert Hooke, Micrographia (London, 1665), p . 228.Google Scholar
24Newton to Flamsteed, 16 February 1694/5, in J. F. Scott (ed.), The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, 4 (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 86–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Flamsteed to Ward, 31 January 1679/80, in Baily, op. cit., 2, p. 120.Google Scholar
26The report is published in Baily, op.cit. 2, pp. 187–193 (including Notes). Cf. p. 189.Google Scholar
27Scott (ed.), op. cit., 24, pp. 454–459.Google Scholar
28These are discussed by Flamsteed in op. cit., 14., p. 455.Google Scholar
29Edmond Halley (ed.) Historia Coelestis (Londini, 1712).Google Scholar
30Francis Baily (1831). ‘A Catalogue of the Positions (in 1690) of 564 Stars observed Flamsteed, but not inserted in his British Catalogue; together with some Remarks on Flamsteed's Observations’, Mem. astr. Soc, 4, 129–164.Google Scholar