Isaac Newton, the Alchemist Mansel Davies 14 Marine Terrace, Criccieth, Carna~onshire,LL52 OEF U.K.
I t is reasonable to suggest that Isaac Newton (16421727) remains the greatest individual contributor to Weste m science ( I ) . His total impact-especially his mathematical treatment of motion, gravitation, the laws of planetary orbits, and the tides of the earth's oceans- inaugurated modern science. Although universally recognized for his unique significance in our history, the recognition has its limitations. While more than 500,000 visit Shakespeare's birthplace at Stratford-upon-Avon each year, fewer than one hundredth of that number visit Woolsthorpe Manor, Newton's home in Lincolnshire, England. More than 200 years aRer Newton's death elapsed before a n adequate collection of his letters was printed (1961-19621, and only aRer that was the great bulk of his papers published. Part of this prolonged obscurity may be ascribed to the fact that most of his archives, which were inherited by his niece, passed into the private collections of the Earls of Portsmouth. How limited this factor was can also be revealed. A century ago, a large tranche of his papers was offered by the then-Lord Portsmouth to the Library of Cambridge University. It was refused as being"ofno scientific interest ". A refusal which must represent an ultimate level in dim obscuritanism. The papers are now part of the Maynard Lord Keynes's MSS in the Library of King's College, Cambridge. They form the major section of Newton's writings on alchemy. This content undoubtedly contributed to the earlier opinion of them. (2) In this context an obvious psychological feature is illustrated: Heroes are not expected to be too obviously human or even too markedly the products of their time. Many of those deeply attached to Mozart's genius have refused to see the over-dramatized fdm "Amadeus", or even attend performances of the less, rumbustious presentation in Shaffer's original play. How could the precisely logical,
Figure 1. Sir Isaac Newton, from a portrait by an unknown artist, c 1726. National Portrait Gallery. London.
726
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 2. Newton's rooms at Trinity College, Cambridge were to the right of the gatehouse, on the first floor. His laboratory was probably the shed that can be seen in this contemporary engraving,at the end of the garden against the wall of the chapel. Taken from ref. 7. profoundly analytical, mathematically quantitative Newton be seriously addicted to alchemy? This seems grossly, even embarassindv. inconsistent with his l o w Presidencv of the Royal ~0cG.t;:For two centuries alchemy appeared as a slur on his scientific reputation. Brewster, Newton's notable 19th century biographer, quickly passed over his concern for so base a topic as alchemy (3). But what are the fads? Only during the last 30 years has a clear insight become available: The first adequate account is a 1975 volume, The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy, by Betty Jo Dobbs (4). It is no coincidence that the Newtonian era saw the decay of alchemy and the emergence of what soon became remgnizably chemistry. Thus, it may be appropriate to refer to this early state of the science as "chemistry", if only to emphasize its transitional character. The extent of Newton's studies in "chemistry"is extraordinary. He maintained an intense interest in it for 30 years, beginning in the mid-1660's. He read alchemical writings omnivorously, and made extensive notes, oRen complete transcripts of those texts he particularly valued. Such notetaking is an infallible sign of the committed student. There is much confusion in these notebooks due to the congestion of different items, sometimes written one over another. Their total volume is about a million words (400 words per page for about 2,500 pages). In addition, for many years he experimented assiduously Living in rooms near the main gate of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was a Fellow, he was provided with an "elaboratory", in the form of a small room built onto the external wall ofthe chapel. There he, himself, constructed the furnaces which, it is recorded, were kept running on occasions, night and day for weeks on end. His assistant in this work, Humphrey Newton (no re~a~on~,whowa5im%~c~nottodi9~59these acki-&ties, later reported that, to his understanding, nothing of consequence was discovered. Certainly Newton claimed nothing significant. To appreciate Newton's commitment one must recall that alchemy was universally accepted in the 17th century, and in Keynes's notable characterization, Newton
I
I
,
:,! .(
:i ::
Figure 3. As pall of his efforts to plumb the alchemical literature, Newton made this list of alchemical symbols. was a Byzantine personality. He accepted the unity of the world in all its asoects. and he was intent on emlorinp. its total structure. He attempted the interpretation oflthe whole of human knowledee. This is shown most clearlv bv his major studies of ~ i b l e h i s t o r yand Biblical prophecies. Two substantial volumes of his writings on these subjects appeared after his death: The Chronology ofAncient Kingdoms Amended (1728) and Observations upon the Prophecies ofDaniel and thetloocalv~seof St. John (1733). These fit, equally with alchemy, in% the context of a Byzantine outlook. There is a common tie between these interests. In them Newton demonstrated both his willing reliance on his predecessors and his predisposition to accept that much of significance was to be found in traditional texts, be they Biblical or alchemical. Furthermore, he was fullv convinced that these various texts were written by cog&seenti for cognoscenti, but that, in the available versions, they were often corrupted and needed critical analysis before their correct meaning could be revealed. This was an entirely rational approach for a scholar of the 17th century, and, many wonid aver, also for a scholar of the 20th c e n k r y . In this context of reason, Newton reiected the accepted Christian doctrine ofthcT&ity. This &is so hereticalihat n hinlselfbrcause it would crrtainlv have led to he keot it t his expulsion from his College and the ~ n i v e k i t y Living . constantlv with this criooline disbelief must have added significaitly to the natiial sascibility of one who could never sladlv suffer differences from his own ooinions. As for thekible, Newton believed the alchemical -tin@ held maior truths which detailed studv would reveal. He saw no reason to doubt the sincerity of h e work and records of so many able and perservering early scientists. "Chemical" processes often led to drastic transformations. Simple displacement reactions (e.g., of copper from solution by zinc) strongly suggested other, more radical possibilities. His contemporaries were equally convinced of this. One of the few colleames with whom Newton correspondedmore than . could once on matters "chemical" was Robert ~ o y l eThere be no more reliable guide. Marie Boas Hall has written: "one of his IHnyle'sI firmest followers was Isaac Newtnn, a careful and imoressionahlc student of Rovle's works"r.51.It Seekis no surprise ihat this leR Newton an alihemist (6). ine an understandine of material chanees. " , Newton keot in mI\d the biological Gorld. He conceived that what w k o w call inorganic matter contained '.a vegetable spirit". This he described as an -unimamn:ibl.y small portion of matter" which, in the organic worid, gave rise to the transformations seen in the growth of a plant or animal: In "a dead inactive earth", it gave the possibility of "chemical" change. This oowerful "veeetable soirit". if fullv understood and contklled, could l;.;ld to tremendous possibilities, and so it had "to he keot from wlear eves"-rather like the "secret" " of the atomic-bomb in our century. Accordingly, the alchemists had, wisely in this view, hidden their fmdings in obscure, not to say mystical, jargon. Newton was so con-
-
-
vinced of the importance of a correct interpretation of these writines that he prepared. on three occasions. extended dlctlonanes p m g thk meanlngs he deduced to be appropriate to alchem~calsymbols and terms One of these dictionaries, his Indez ~hernicus,gave more than 5000 references to details in the writings of a hundred authors, arranged under some 900 headings. Of all this extended effort Newton published only marginal comments in his own writings. Of principal importance are the Queries he inserted in the various editions of his volume Optics (1695; 1706; 1717). In these he adopted a rhetorical mode. Rather than assert an opinion on which he could be challenged to produce the evidence, he generally asked "Is it not likely that ... ?Can one not say that ...?" If, as is usual, we take these suggestions in a positive sense, it can beclaimed that he clearly envisaged an atomic constitution of matter. He consistently referred to microscopic particles of individual substances. To this view he added a significant new hypothesis. Substances, he surmised, exhibited their properties of stability and, when subiected to stress (e.p... - . heat). their instabilitv and consequent transformations as a result of "microscopic forces". These forces, thought of specifically as attractive, were not identified further than to claim they fell off more rapidly than gravitational forces--they decreased with distance as llr" with n < 2. This is a first adumbration of a possible quantitative representation of chemical bonding. Although given only a very general character, these "forces" were an advance on the "aerial", "sulphurous", "earthy", etc., "spirits" in terms of which most previous discussion of "chemical" change had been presented. Newton himself, to unify dead with living matter, had used the presence of a 'keg;table spirit" as a universal ingredient in matter to eive it for change. One &her important consequence the of his practical experience and extensive reading in "chemistry"was his ability to make major improvements in the coinage of the realm during his 30 years, first a s Warden and later as Master of the Mint. His guarded support for an atomic theory and his improvements at the mint are perhaps the most significant results of his huge investment of time in "chemistry". If this be regarded as a meager return, then even more tenuous were the results ofhis long biblical studies. There his most interesting deduction was 3986 BC as the date for the creation of the world. This was two centuries earlier than the oft-quoted Archbishop Usher's date of 4004 BC for the same event. Newton. like any other human, was a child, or at best, a man of his age. Wc should not be sumrised that he absorhed maior asoects of contemporary thought and became attached to conkepts we find remarkable three centuries later. Of greater and longer-term significanceis that Newton's essentially rational, analvtical, and mathematical studies in physics and astronomv soon helped to make adherence to thekystlque U y the end of the 18th century, the of alchemy ~mposs~ble. validity of ~ e & o n ' sphy&s made the acceptance ofbhlogiston,with its negative weight, untenable. I t is a matter for despair-that his masterly analysis of planetary and comet motions has not yet sufficed to banish the nonsense of astrology Literature Cited
.
.
-.
.
3. David Brewster. Marnoirs Of& L+, writings end Dismvorrpa of lsooc Newto": Chambers, W . ;Chambers, R., Ed&; Edinburgh, 1855. 4. Dobbs, B. J. T h s F o u n d d m c f N ~ w f 'fAiihe?~y; ff Cambridge: England, 1975. 5.Hal1,M.B.mfiI),D.S.B.,vol. ICp379. 6. "Boyle was surprisingly an alchemist, but hb alebemy was a logical outmme of his atomism. Ifeven substance is merely areamangementofthe same basic elements, tmamutatian should be possible." ChombersBiogmphieotDWfloioio'y~Chamberj W.; ChambemR., Eds.:Edinburgh, 1982: p 164. 7.&tN~tttBe!;Fsuvel,A.;Flood, R.:Shortland, M.; Wilson,R, Eds: 0rfmd:England. 1988.
Volume 68 Number 9 Se~tember1991
727
