Abstract
Edmond Halley, whose surname was sometimes spelled Hawley and may well have been pronounced accordingly, was born in 1656, apparently on the 29th of October. One can be confident about the year, but there is some uncertainty about the month and day. For one, records in 17th-century England did not always make clear whether a date was given by the Gregorian calendar or the older Julian calendar; also, Edmond Halley and Anne Robinson, the parents of our Edmond Halley, were married at St. Margaret’s Church, it seems, only seven weeks or so before October 29th 1656, making the birth date of Edmond the son, suspect, but then it might be the wedding date which is in doubt.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is, however, Edmond, and not Edmund.
- 2.
For discussions of Halley’s birth date, see Ronan (1969), pp. 2–3, and Cook (1998), p. 32.
- 3.
Robert Hooke had claimed priority for the idea of the inverse square law.
- 4.
De Morgan, A. (1847), “Halley,” in Cabinet Portraits of British Worthies (ed. Charles Knight), vol.II, p. 12 (quoted in Cook (1998), p.178).
- 5.
Summarized in his work of 1705, Astronomiae Cometicae Synopsis. This was published simultaneously in English as A Synopsis of the Astronomy of Comets. The unbreakable association between Halley and comets was not formed because of this work, nor in his lifetime, but only after the return of the 1682 comet on Christmas day 1758, as Halley predicted.
- 6.
In 1678, this was still not something to be taken for granted. See below.
- 7.
From 1720 until his death in 1742.
- 8.
Berry (1961), p. 253.
- 9.
A New and Correct Chart shewing the Variations of the Compass in the Western and Southern Oceans as Observed in ye Year 1700 by his Maties [i.e., Majesty’s]Command by Edm. Halley (1701). Halley called these “curve-lines,” but they were called already in his own time “Halleyan lines” (see Warntz and Wolff (1971), pp. 79–105).
- 10.
See Heywood (1985).
- 11.
See, for example, Traub (1964).
- 12.
One must recall that Swift’s famous satire comes at the tail of a longer debate on ancients and moderns of which some landmarks are Fontenelle’s Digression sur les anciens et les modernes (1688), defending the moderns; William Temple’s Upon Ancient and Modern Learning (1690) on the side of the ancients; William Wotton’s Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning (1694), responding to Temple and giving the edge to the moderns.
- 13.
Hill (1996 and 1997).
- 14.
According to one estimate, Halley’s work on classics and other historical work constituted 13% of his professional life; by contrast, his purely mathematical work constituted only 11% and his cometary work only 3% (see Hughes (1990), p. 327).
- 15.
Aubrey (1669–1696, 1957), p. 121.
- 16.
This relationship has been discussed thoroughly in Chapman (1994).
- 17.
Halley (1691).
- 18.
A thorough account can be found in Fried and Unguru (2001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fried, M.N. (2012). Chapter 1 Edmond Halley: Ancient and Modern. In: Edmond Halley’s Reconstruction of the Lost Book of Apollonius’s Conics. Sources and Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0146-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0146-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-0145-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-0146-9
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)