Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
NEWTON, ISAAC (b. Woolsthorpe, England,
25 December 1642; d. London, England, 20 March
1727), mathematics, dynamics, celestial mechanics,
astronomy, optics, natural philosophy.
Alchemy, Prophecy, and Theology. Chronology and
History.
preach metaphysics to the unlearned common
people, and to their wives and children?” Other
queries in this set are also historical; in the seventh
Newton marshaled his historico-philological acumen
in the matter of the Latin rendering unius substantiae,
which he considered to have been imposed on the
Western churches instead of consubstantialis by
“Hosius (or whoever translated that [Nicene] Creed
into Latin).” Another manuscript entitled “Paradoxical
Questions” turns out to be less a theological
inquiry than a carefully reasoned proof of what
Lord Keynes called “the dishonesty and falsification of
records for which St Athanasius [and his followers]
were responsible.” In it Newton cited, as an example,
the spreading of the story that Arius died in a house
of prostitution.
In a Keynes manuscript (in King's College,
Cambridge), “The First Book Concerning the
Language of the Prophets,” Newton explained his
method:
He that would understand a book written in a strange
language must first learn the language. . . . Such a
language was that wherein the Prophets wrote, and
the want of sufficient skill in that language is the reason
why they are so little understood. John . . ., Daniel . . .,
Isaiah . . . all write in one and the same mystical
language . . . [which] so far as I can find, was as certain
and definite in its signification as is the vulgar language
of any nation. . . .
Having established this basic premise, Newton went
on: “It is only through want of skill therein that
Interpreters so frequently turn the Prophetic types and
phrases to signify whatever their fancies and hypotheses
lead them to.” Then, in a manner reminiscent of
the rules at the beginning of book III of the Principia,
he added:
The rule I have followed has been to compare the
several mystical places of scripture where the same
prophetic phrase or type is used, and to fix such a
signification to that phrase as agrees best with all the
places: . . . and when I had found the necessary
significations, to reject all others as the offspring of
luxuriant fancy, for no more significations are to be
admitted for true ones than can be proved.
Newton's alchemical manuscripts show that he
sometimes used a similar method, drawing up
comparative tables of symbols and of symbolic names
used by alchemists, no doubt in the conviction that
a key to their common language might be found
thereby. His careful discrimination among the
alchemical writers may be seen in two manuscripts
in the Keynes Collection, one a three-page classified
list of alchemical writers and the other a two-page
selection of “authores optimi,” by whom Newton
perhaps meant authorities who described processes
that might be repeated and verified. The Babson
Collection of Newtoniana contains a two-page
autograph manuscript listing 113 writers on alchemy
arranged by nationalities and another seven-page
manuscript of “chemical authors and their writings”
in which Newton commented on the more important
ones. At least two other such bibliographical works by
Newton are known. An “Index Chemicus,” an
elaborate subject index to the literature of alchemy
with page references to a number of different works
(described as containing more than 20,000 words on
113 pages), is one of at least five such indexes, all in
autograph manuscripts.179
It must be emphasized that Newton's study of
alchemy was not a wholly rational pursuit, guided by a
strict code of linguistic and historical investigative
procedures. To so consider it would be to put it on the
same plane as his chronological inquiries.180 The
chronological studies are, to a considerable degree, the
result of the application of sound principles of astronomical
dating to poor historical evidence—for which
his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended was quite
properly criticized by the French antiquarians of his
day—while his alchemical works show that he drew
upon esoterical and even mystical authors, far beyond
the confines of an ordinary rational science.
It is difficult to determine whether to consider
Newton's alchemy as an irrational vagary of an
otherwise rational mind, or whether to give his
hermeticism a significant role as a developmental force
in his rational science. It is tempting, furthermore, to
link his concern for alchemy with his belief in a secret
tradition of ancient learning. He believed that he had
traced this prisca sapientia to the ancient Greeks
hat in the
1690's, when Newton was preparing a revise
or magicians; he concluded that these ancients
had known even the inverse-square law of gravitation.
Cohen, McGuire, and Rattansi have shown that in the
1690's, when Newton was preparing a revised edition
of the Principia, he thought of including references to
such an ancient tradition in a series of new scholia for
the propositions at the beginning of book III of the
Principia, along with a considerable selection of verses
from Lucretius' De natura rerum. All of this was to be
an addendum to an already created Principia, which
Newton was revising for a new edition.
There is not a shred of real evidence, however, that
Newton ever had such concerns primarily in mind
in those earlier years when he was writing the Principia
or initially developing the principles of dynamics and
of mathematics on which the Principia was ultimately
to be based. In Newton's record of alchemical