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.
experiments (University Library, Cambridge, MS
Add. 3975), the experiments dated 23 May [1684]
are immediately followed by an entry dated 26 April
1686. The former ends in the middle of a page, and
the latter starts on the very next line; there is no
lacuna, and no possibility that a page—which
chronologically might concern experiments made
while the Principia was being written—might be
missing from the notebook.181
The overtones of alchemy are on occasion discernible
in Newton's purely scientific writings. In query 30
of the Opticks (first published in the Latin version,
then in the second English edition), Newton said that
“Nature . . . seems delighted with Transmutations,”
although he was not referring specifically to changing
metals from one to another. (It must be remembered in
fact that “transmutation” would not necessarily hold
an exclusively chemical or alchemical meaning for
Newton; it might, rather, signify not only transformations
in general, but also particular transformations
of a purely mathematical sort, as in lemma 22 of
book I of the Principia.) This is a far cry, indeed,
from Newton's extracts from the mystical Count
Michael Maier and kindred authors. P. M. Rattansi
particularly calls attention to the alchemist's “universal
spirit,” and observes: “It is difficult to understand
how, without a conviction of deep and hidden
truths concealed in alchemy, Newton should have
attached much significance to such ideas.”182
Notable instances of the conflation of alchemical
inspiration and science occur in Newton's letter to
Boyle (1679) and in the hypothesis he presented to
explain those properties of light of which he wrote
in his papers in the Philosophical Transactions. While
it is not difficult to discover alchemical images in
Newton's presentation, and to find even specific
alchemical doctrines in undisguised form and language,
the problem of evaluating the influence of
alchemy on Newton's true science is only thereby
compounded, since there is no firm indication of the
role of such speculations in the development of
Newton's physical science. The result is, at best, one
mystery explained by another, like the alchemist's
confusing doctrine of ignotum per ignotius. Rattansi
further suggests that alchemy may have served as a
guiding principle in the formulation of Newton's
views on fermentation and the nourishment of the
vegetation of the earth by fluids attracted from the
tails of comets. He would even have us believe that
alchemical influences may have influenced “the revival
of aetherical notions in the last period of Newton's
life.”183 This may be so; but what, if any, creative
effect such “aetherical notions” then had on Newton's
thought would seem to be a matter of pure hypothesis.
Scholars do not agree whether Newton's association
with some “Hermetic tradition” may have been a
creative force in his science, or whether it is legitimate
to separate his alleged hermeticism from his positive
science. Apart from the level of general inspiration,
it must be concluded that, excluding some aspects
of the theory of matter and chemistry, notably
fermentation, and possibly the ether hypotheses, the
real creative influence of alchemy or hermeticism on
Newton's mathematics and his work in optics,
dynamics, and astronomy (save for the role of the
tails of comets in the economy of nature) must today
be evaluated in terms of the Scottish verdict, “not
proven.” Investigations of this topic may provide
valuable insights into the whole man, Newton, and
into the complexities of his scientific inspiration.
His concern for alchemy and theology should not be
cast aside as irrelevant aberrations of senility or the
product of a mental breakdown. Yet it remains a fact
beyond dispute that such early manuscripts as the
Waste Book—in which Newton worked out and
recorded his purely scientific discoveries and innovations—are
free from the tinges of alchemy and
hermeticism.
The London Years: the Mint, the Royal Society,
Quarrels with Flamsteed and with Leibniz.
On
19 March 1696, Newton received a letter from Charles
Montagu informing him that he had been appointed
warden of the mint. He set up William Whiston as
his deputy in the Lucasian professorship, to receive
“the full profits of the place.” On 10 December 1701
he resigned his professorship, and soon afterward his
fellowship. He was designated an associé étranger of
the Paris Académie des Sciences in February 1699,
chosen a member of the Council of the Royal Society
on the following 30 November, and on 30 November
1703 was made president of the Royal Society, an
office he held until his death. He was elected M.P. for
Cambridge University, for the second time, on
26 November 1701, Parliament being prorogued on
25 May 1702. Queen Anne knighted Newton at
Trinity College on 16 April 1705; on the following
17 May he was defeated in his third contest for
the university's seat in Parliament.
At the mint, Newton applied his knowledge of
chemistry and of laboratory technique to assaying,
but he apparently did not introduce any innovations
in the art of coinage. His role was administrative and
his duties were largely the supervision of the recoinage
and (curious to contemplate) the capture, interrogation,
and prosecution of counterfeiters. Newton
used the patronage of the mint to benefit fellow
scientists. Halley entered the service in 1696 as
comptroller of the Chester mint, and in 1707 David