Newtio Christmas Kink

I had this idea that if Newton was around in modern times, Fatio would likely give him a Toblerone as a Christmas present.

I mean, come on, it's Swiss chocolate, in the shape of a Prism. Perfect!

I also think Fatio would show Newton the proper way of breaking off the individual chunks, and Newton getting flustered when Fatio feeds him a piece.

Isaac Newton in other Media

An amazing short by Adult Swim's 'Robot Chicken'. Nailed it.

A satirical angle to Newton, with quirky jokes and accurate methods of explaining Newton's life and work.

'Epic Rap Battles of History' - Bill Nye vs. Sir Isaac Newton

I've Never Seen A Diamond In The Flesh...

...Because Diamond never existed!

How do I know? Well how do you know that Diamond did exist? There is plenty of proof which disclaims that Diamond, the 'beloved' dog which tipped a candle over a pile of Isaac Newton's papers, never breathed life!

My first encounter with Diamond came quite far into my research on Newton. I'd read a couple of books about him, and none of them mentioned a dog. It was only when I was sitting one evening watching a dog training program on BBC, that one of the person's interviewed said that Isaac Newton owned a Pomeranian. My instant reaction was, '...WHAT?!' Nevertheless, I was completely thrown into the legend, and set about finding out why I hadn't heard of Newton's dog prior. It turned out that Diamond was a 'legend'. Most of the articles I read were adamant that Diamond was real and that Isaac Newton was calm and loving when finding the dog had managed to jump up, either onto or against  the table, and knock a candle over.

As an after thought, I couldn't believe that people were willing to simply accept Isaac Newton as a calm caring and stable man who would never throw a rage over almost 20 years of his work being burnt to a crisp because he was too soft to train a dog not to jump up.

Of course many people accept it because it's taught from an early age to children, who are to learn from Newton's calm way of dealing with events such as these.

Here's what most people who believe the Diamond myth find themselves saying:
[Link]

However, as is said in the article, the dog that is Diamond, was a Pomeranian. Pomeranians hadn't been introduced to Britain until after Isaac Newton's death in 1727. [Link]

Alright, so if it wasn't a Pomeranian, what was it then?

One legend of Diamond mentions that they were a Terrier. A little bit different from a Pomeranian I suppose. The breed of dog seems to change every time I find out more, there was a mention of a Spaniel at one point which would have been plausible, but it wasn't backed up with any sources. I think on it's own, this is more than enough evidence to prove Diamond's claim to fame. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!

Diamond has a reputation for knocking over the candle and burning the papers of Newton, but where exactly did Diamond commit this grievous act that Newton seemed so calm to forgive? Was it Cambridge? Or was it London? Well, according to Diamond fans, it was both. So the dog managed to live long enough to wreck both Cambridge and London? (Maybe the dastardly dog started the Great Fire of 1666!) In all seriousness, Diamond was more or less attributed to Cambridge, but because of the lack of evidence, believers seem to claim Diamond was at both.

The Diamond legend was pretty much spurred from the real event that happened during the winter of 1677. Newton was making a rare appearance to chapel, when his collection of scientific and alchemical papers caught fire and almost burnt down the laboratory. These laboratories were almost like wooden sheds attached to the rooms at Cambridge. This fire caused a major set-back to his work on Opticks, which is said to have been worked upon partly on the papers burnt.

An extract from Peter Ackroyd's 'Newton' says,
    'His relative, John Conduitt, left a note concerning Newton's memory of the fire. 'When he was in the midst of his discoveries', he wrote, 'he left a candle on his table amongst his papers & went down to the bowling green & meeting somebody that diverted him from returning as he intended the candle sett fire to his papers.' Newton recalled that these 'papers' were concerned with optics and with mathematics that he could never recover.'
    There are other reports of the fire (though these, in fact, may relate to other fires). In one of them Newton returned from the college chapel to find a book of his experiments incinerated, at which he became so agitated 'every one thought he would have run mad, he was so troubled thereat that he was not himself for a Month thereafter.'

If Isaac Newton's own absentmindedness allowed him to go outside without extinguishing a candle, how on Earth was he able to care for a dog? Other mentions of non-Diamond reference comes from his assistant Humphrey Newton (non-related), who claimed that he kept 'neither dog nor cat in his chambers [at Cambridge]'.

An early documented account of Diamond came from 'The Antiquary', written by Walter Scott in 1816 in his volume of the 'Waverley Novels' (Volume 2, Chapter 1). [Link]

So far, I've given more than enough evidence to scrap the idea of Diamond. If anyone has an inkling into Isaac Newton's life, they'll know of his temperament and of his personality. He was barely able to care for himself, let alone a dog. The 'facts' seem to contradict each other, where one account claims Diamond tipped the candle over in Cambridge, the same incident occurred in London. His cry of 'O Diamond, Diamond, thou little knowest the mischief thou hast done' in a calm manner, and the breed to which Diamond is attributed are all over the place.

But think of the children!

I have, and you know what? I'd rather teach my children that life is chock full of pain and events that will surely lead you to near insanity. There is no need to bring a dog into Newton's picture, where any Newtonian would surely realise that Newton's reaction would likely be to lock the dog outside, then pull at his hair from the loss of years of work, not 'Oh dear, nevermind, I'm not mad or anything, I'm completely calm.'

Thus, dear children, I hope you learn THIS lesson, never, I say, NEVER, leave a candle near papers that you have spent over a decade on, then leave said candle near a window and go to chapel. Don't expect God to maintain the wind for you if you don't think of the consequences! In light of all of this, if you do have a dog, please train it NOT to jump up tables, and incidentally, clear your head of Natural Philosophy before using fire.

Explaining Hannah Ayscough-Newton-Smith

The character and personality of Hannah is fascinating. Although the mother of Sir Isaac Newton didn't live to see her son knighted, her early years with her son are not only perceived differently by Newton biographers, but her reasons for acting in the way she did are what truly make her and Newton's relationship intriguing.

Background

Hannah Ayscough was born into a well-to-do gentry family, her brother was a clergyman, and she could read and write, although not incredibly well, she had a form of education which made her position in society higher than that of Newton's father. Her marriage to Newton's father was arranged by the two families, who took into consideration her gentry background and his families success as Yeomen. Position and money dominated the reasons for her marriage to Isaac, who was 17 years her senior. She was 19 when she married, making him around 35.

As she and Isaac settled into married life, Isaac became ill, and died only 6 months into their marriage. Hannah was at the time pregnant, and the death of her husband contributed to her going into early labour. She gave birth to Isaac Newton Jr on the 25th December 1642 (Julian Calender). His premature birth led to a curious tale he told later in life, where two women who worked at the Manor were sent to fetch a woman to see to baby Newton, but dawdled due to their expectancy that he would be dead by the time they got back, so there was no need to rush! Luckily Isaac Newton Jr survived, and he was Christened on the 1st January 1643, after Hannah worried he wouldn't live to see the new year, choosing to only Christen him if he lived to see the new year in. Then she had him named after his father, as sentiment.

I believe this must have been a worrying time for Hannah, her husband had died before the birth of her premature first child, all during a time of Civil War. She was still a young woman, who was pretty much to tend the farm with a small army of servants on her own, as well as raise a baby.

Yet for the first three years of Isaac Newton's life, he had Hannah's love, her devotion, and above all, he didn't have to share her. For Hannah however, her position as a single mother meant that she was in a vulnerable place, Civil War meant the threat of soldiers, and without a husband's security, she must have felt in danger for a long time. However, I feel that she must have felt that she couldn't do anything to establish better security for her son and herself. It wasn't until her brother, William Ayscough, the clergyman suggested a marriage to the Reverand Barnabas Smith.

Barnabas was an elderly man, over thirty years Hannah's age, but he had become a widower with no issue, and he had money and security to offer.

For Hannah, her feelings about the proposal must have been mixed. If she accepted, it would more than likely mean that should Barnabas accept Isaac into the family, Isaac's title as 'Lord of the Manor' which came with the house would be stripped from him. But how could she leave her son to marry another man? And an elderly one at that! She must have thought very carefully about how she would play this, as marriage would come with security as mentioned, but due to Barnabas Smith's refusal to have Isaac at his house, meant that Isaac would have to be left at Woolsthorpe. Isaac would certainly have benefited from the marriage to Smith, as he would keep the title, and because Smith was nearing the end of his life, would mean Hannah could inherit her share of his money, which as Isaac was the eldest, would go to him. 

Her plan was to accept, where it's believed her thinking was that Smith wouldn't last long (say a couple of years). Unfortunately for Isaac, Smith died 7 years after Hannah married him. That's seven years Isaac was deprived of his mother.

Now a lot of people think that when Hannah married, she stayed permanently at Smith's house without ever seeing her son until her return 7 years later. She did in fact visit occasionally, but it was difficult for Isaac to tell when she would. Her visits weren't consistent, and it must have broken both Isaac's and Hannah's hearts to be constantly separated over the course of the marriage to Smith.

People also seem to think that Hannah 'abandoned' Isaac. I can't think for a second, even given the era they lived, that Hannah would willingly without sentiment just leave her son and marry for the hell of it. She must have been tortured, thinking about her son back at Woolsthorpe, while she patiently waited for Smith's eminent death. Prior to her marriage, Hannah's strength to leave her son behind, and well as go through with marrying another man is astounding.

Seven years past and the Reverand Barnabas Smith pops his clogs, bidding Hannah a lovely amount of money, and a ticket back to Woolsthorpe. When Isaac heard of his mother coming back for good, he must have felt partial happiness along with uncertainty. This woman who was more of a mystery now than a mother was returning for good. Was it going to be like it was before she left? Was he going to have his mother to himself once again? In Isaac's case, the ties between mother and son had been snipped at far too many times, and the damage done to Isaac's psyche was on the brink. So when Hannah did come back, she brought in hand money, and three half-siblings.

The arrival of his half-siblings must have broken Isaac, to find his mother had had three more children. Not only that, but the time Hannah had spent caring and loving Smith's three offspring, struck deep in Isaac's heart. Where was her devotion and care that should have been given to him for the past seven years?

My idea with this is that Hannah couldn't bring herself to show too much love and affection every time she visited Isaac, perhaps this made things easier for her. Yet her bond with Isaac was permanently altered, and Isaac would later feel bitter resentment towards her and his half-siblings. Her attitude toward's his well-being must have been a strain, as Isaac's refusal to agree-to disagree, meant that they were perhaps constantly arguing. What Hannah felt best for Isaac, Isaac turned round to tell her she was wrong. Yet in all the conflict that was shared between them, Isaac inherited from Barnabas Smith his vast collection of books. (Although one of the books became known as the 'Waste Book', renamed by Isaac as a jab towards Smith who had used a couple of pages in it, and where Isaac had written his 'sins' later in his Cambridge days).

In her mind, Hannah had planned Isaac's life from the start. Even in the events following Isaac Newton Sr.'s death, she still planned for her son to carry on the ways of becoming a farmer. Yet for Isaac, he had other ideas. Hannah would find as he grew that Isaac showed no interest in farming, merely because his mind was always elsewhere that he neglected it to the point where neighbourly complaints were abound. His schooling, whilst Hannah had no objections to him learning, meant that it was for a limited time until she took him out of school to become said farmer. Isaac proving that his mother's decision was wrong, as in his mind was too often, her brother William (again) suggests that he return to school and then pursue a Cambridge education. Of course Hannah believing what is best for Isaac is not education, rejected the idea. Yet after persistence from both William and Isaac, she gives in.

In this case, Hannah's way of thinking is more to do with position rather than education. Although I'm sure she had no objections to learning, she felt that her son was not of the right position in life to strive for Cambridge. With his father's history in his, she believed that young Isaac would follow his father's path, rather than the Ayscough path, which had be been born an Ayscough, would have been completely different, as William was a Cambridge man, and men did receive a better education back then than women. But that aside, her views on education conflicting with position in society meant that her idea of a future for Isaac was much different than what happened. Of course she does eventually come round to the idea, but only after when Isaac attends Cambridge, allowing him only a small sum of money to live with.

Perhaps this is her way of showing Isaac that she was still his mother, and of course, mother's know best! If Hannah had stayed with Isaac, then Isaac as we know him wouldn't have existed. Her actions to secure Isaac's future by marrying again led to the unforeseen success he gained in life. If she hadn't have abandoned him, his mind wouldn't have been shaped in the way it did, to become completely enlightened by Classics and Philosophy, to have the mind of an inventor, a genius, the Isaac Newton that is so famous today, is perhaps the subconscious work of Hannah Ayscough.

In later years they do get along better, and on her death bed, Isaac tries his hardest to save her, but once again, she is taken away from his, this time permanently. She dies in 1679 at the age of 56, leaving her funeral to be carried out as Isaac deemed fit. She is buried next to her first husband Isaac at Colsterworth Church, a place that Sir Isaac Newton wished to be buried himself, but because of his status, and the impact he made on the world, he was given a state burial at Westminster Abbey. His wish to be buried with his parents seem to suggest his fondness for his home, but also suggests his bitter regret of his resentment towards Hannah in later life. Yet I think Hannah realised the decision about Isaac attending Cambridge brought a major impact to hers and Isaac's half-sibling's lives. His success led to financial support for relatives, and on her death-bed, I can believe that they reconciled their differences before the end. 

Hannah was a true martyr for her son, and all her children, but her impact on Isaac, although may have been seen as cruel, served justice, and her love to him may have been passed down, as his kind heart opens up with age. Family becomes something that is important to him in the last decade of his life, and Hannah's family orientated mind served to be genetic in Isaac.

About

This blog is a compilation and combination of aspects during Newton's life which are put under analysis, as well as looking into the myths, legends, and speculations surrounding Newton, and whether they are true or not. There also includes posts about media outlets which involve Newton's character, as well as my own interpretations on Newton and others related to him through family, friends and foes.

The titles of this blog 'Watch Me Split The Light' refers to Newton's discoveries on Light, where he spilt white light through a glass prism into a spectrum of colours. It also refers to how the legends of Newton - such as the apple and Diamond the Dog are put under scrutiny and examined with sources to back up the facts on such topics.

I always try to seek the source of what is said about Newton, whether it be taken as fact or fiction in general points of view. Instead of hearing or reading something at face value, I seek the original sources and summarise what is known, dividing opinion from truth, as such, much of what is written on this blog is a balanced but scrutinised view.

Isaac Newton is one of my heroes - if not my all-time hero, simply because he is truly fascinating, whether it was from what he discovered with light and forces, or from his personal life. 

I hope you find this blog enjoyable, and please feel free to comment!

Who invented first, the German or the Brit...?

There's plenty of Isaac Newton biographies out there to read up on, but I'm just going to give my thoughts on this, I'll also add a very funny, but very informative video which better describes my point.

Background

The Calculus War was a dispute between Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, both fully accomplished Philosophers who had both invented a method of Calculus. Their individual variations on the subject are surprisingly different, yet, the history between both men caused an outbreak which ended up in one of them losing their reputation. The separate versions of Calculus meant that although they were in fact different in the ways they were used, they both carried out the same way of thinking and, of course, through both you achieved the same answer. Calculus today is the German version invented by Leibniz, but there is (still) and on-going battle between who actually came up with it first.

Apparently, neither of them did.

It was in fact the Ancient Greeks who invented the first methods of Calculus. But for the purposes of argument, the 'modern' Calculus is what this is about.

Isaac Newton had in fact written draft notes explaining a method of Calculus some time before Leibniz, and the papers had circled the continent between other Philosophers. However, it's debated that Leibniz himself saw these papers, and (the point used against him) took the ideas from Newton to start his own version. Of course, this all kicked off when our dear friend and bff Nicolas Fatio de Duillier labelled Leibniz as a plagiarist. It is to be noted that Fatio and Leibniz were on good terms throughout his time before coming into contact with Newton, so his sympathies for Leibniz were all but gone when it came to choosing a side. His reasons for starting up the conflict? My guess is it had something to do with gaining favour in the Royal Society circle again, after his stint with the Camisards...

Anyway, my thoughts are that although I believe Newton invented the foundations for modern Calculus, which reached eyes on the continent, I feel that Leibniz dis-regarded Newton's version (supposing that he had seen it) and reshaped it into the Calculus we use today. Yet because Newton did in fact write down his methods onto paper prior to Leibniz publishing his work, as well as plenty of Newton supporters from the continent ready to back him up, Leibniz didn't stand much of a chance.

Plus, as Newton had an army of support, he was able to wing his way through having his version published and causing Leibniz to be labelled a plagiarist. As a Newtonian, while his actions are deemed inexcusable, I must admit I'd feel the same if someone had read my papers which had my version of Calculus on, and then went ahead to create their own version based on mine. From Newton's perspective, combined with his superiority complex, any means (including lying) to have your name on the final print, isn't that much of a surprise.

However, I feel for Leibniz, despite my patriotism, as I'm sure he meant nothing of it, feeling he had come up with a completely independent form of Calculus. However, from this I conclude that both Isaac Newton and Gottfriend Leibniz invented Calculus independently.

Enjoy!

Did Isaac Newton Inspire Sherlock Holmes?

British television these days has gained international success, from period dramas like 'Downton Abbey', to science fiction shows, namely 'Doctor Who'. But one other great success to have been spawned from the genius of Television writers and creators, is Sherlock Holmes. The modern-day twist to the classic tales written by Arthur Conan Doyle in 1887, give a fresh look to detective tales that fans (incuding myself) have watched and re-watched relentlessly to pick up on new details that are missed each time the three hour and a half long episodes in each series screen.

Yet, when I became enthralled to the series, I had noticed that there were certain similarities between the character Sherlock (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) and Sir Isaac Newton. The personalities, the assertive asexual natures, the dominant know-it-alls, the relationships between friends, these points including more stood out, and has probably stood out to many more who have read about the 17th century genius. 

When watching 'Sherlock', the avid Newtonian will almost instantly pick up on the way Sherlock's mannerisms, give a sense of isolation, where emotion and expression are very low-key. To Newtonians, Isaac Newton's own nature was the same, his lack of emotion towards family members, friends, people he was close to, all would say that the only slight given that he was enjoying himself was with a smile. Sherlock expresses smiles quite a lot, although his passion for crime brings about an over-excitable reaction, one that people around him would consider unusual.

The eminent genius of Sherlock and Newton also share a nature that is perhaps quite discreet. With both Newton and Sherlock, there is a speculation that both are diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism which people without it would find the other unable to diverse in normal social interaction, their lack of sympathy and empathy, and physical clumsiness. However, their inability to communicate the same and others leaves room for a certain path in what their brains solely learn. Newton was devoted to his mathematics, which led to Natural Philosophy, and later, Alchemy. Sherlock has a 'mind palace' which he uses to quickly gain information that he's swiftly collected and stored for later use. His ability to learn almost anything by working out 'how' it is done, then placing the information into his mind palace, give both Newton and Sherlock the benefit of the doubt that they are able to absorb whatever they want and store it without fault. Newton, although probably didn't have a mind palace, was always thinking, his mind constantly working, while his hand was attached to the quill. However, for Sherlock, specialists have claimed the character, who was quoted to perhaps have Asperger's by John Watson in Series 2 Episode 2, doesn't have the form of autism. Whereas in comparison, Newton displays all the characteristics of a man who has from an early age had Asperger's. The reference however does lead these two to be compared in this way, and it leads me to another characteristic they share.

In Series 2 Episode 1, Sherlock is seen standing up whilst eating. This characteristic is one that features quite a lot in Newton, where he is described by friends that he 'would eat a bit or two standing, for I cannot say, I ever saw him sit at table by himself' - Isaac Newton, The Last Sorceror by Michael White. In earlier episodes of Sherlock, he is seen to be sitting next to or opposite John Watson watching his friend eat while he sits and talks. This shows Sherlock only eating stood up and unable to eat among company.

Another characteristic that isn't quite so obvious, is Sherlock and Newton's struggle to remember names. It is noted clearly in Sherlock where he constantly forgets the name of Greg Lestrade, calling him Gavin, Graham or Geoff. The reason behind this goes back to the books, where he is only reffered to as G. Lestrade, so the name misplacing is because of this, but it's nice to know that it could also refer to Newton's lack of name remembering skills.

With John Watson, I found his character to be compared to two separate figures who appear in Newton's life. The first is the most obvious one, John Wickens, a companion Newton acquired whilst at Cambridge. The two decided to 'chum' together in the same dwelling as their current room mates were 'disorderly'. This friendship lasted for 20 years, before Wickens left Cambridge to marry and become a clergyman. The relationship was close, but not much is known about the nature of it. I believe it was innocent, where Wickens found himself thrown in with Newton's alchemical studies, much like John Watson was thrown into Sherlock's world of crime-solving. The nature between Sherlock and John of course is ambiguous, and although I can say that whilst romance between the pair is scarce, the close bond the two have show a deep love on a platonic level. Sherlock is an openly asexual character, and it would be careless to believe that sex between Sherlock and John is likely to happen. That being said, Sherlock manages to perform well with his staged relationship with Janine in Series 3 Episode 3. 

Yet his ability to con someone into believing that he loves them (through sex) compared to the love he holds for his best-friend John (where he doesn't want sex), leaves me to see a similarity in the relationship between Newton and Wickens. Newton's (presumed) asexuality, and Wicken's (presumed) heterosexuality, might not likely cause any bond between the two men. Yet whilst we may never know the truth, we can know that when Wickens left to marry, Newton shut down, giving only one letter and a stack of Bibles to Wickens a few years after. The tension that this cause for Newton (given his personality as being suspected to have Asperger's) means his attachment to Wickens left Newton to feel cast aside. Like Sherlock, when John Watson married Mary, he walks away as though feeling left out of something he wanted to keep. Unlike Newton, Sherlock maintains the relationship with John and even includes Mary in the cases they solve.

Another figure who may appear like John Watson is Humprey Newton, a non-related assistant who helped Newton in his experiments. Humphrey was also Newton's 'blogger, writing down his memoirs of Newton and his habits later in life, and also being involved in Newton's alchemy work (although unintentionally). Although like Wickens he marries and has children, he works for a lot less time with Newton, a mere 5 years, writing letters to Newton's later nephew-in-law, John Conduitt.

As for Newton's enemies, Robert Hooke stands (short) at the top. The alter-ego in Sherlock-verse seems likely to be Anderson, who for some unknown reason feels obliged to criticise Sherlock for his involvement in crime-solving. Hooke, although wasn't against Newton being part of the Royal Society that both had joined, felt inferior to Newton, who was younger, yet had achieved much more. This jealousy grows to boiling point nearer the end of Hooke's life, who claims to have discovered the 'inverse-square-law' before Newton had, and thus should be given credit in the 'Principia'. And like Newton, Sherlock can throw a tantrum. Their seperate rages give light to their opponent's inability to compete with their genius. However in Sherlock, Anderson comes round to Sherlock's way of thinking, Hooke, unfortunately doesn't, and the dispute between Newton and Hooke ends with Hooke's death, Newton taking over the position Hooke held as President of the Royal Society, and is rumoured to have burnt the only known portrait of Hooke. Newton's ruthlessness is something everyone who has read about Newton knows. Yet this doesn't mean he was always this way.

Sherlock and Newton are similar in how they both had brothers (Newton's was his half-brother, but for the sake of argument we'll save space). Both Sherlock and Newton show a dislike to their brothers, and for Newton who also had two half-sisters, was vicious physically and verbally. He was sarcastic and vile towards describing his siblings, stating in his step-father Barnabas Smith's old 'Waste-Book' (lovingly renamed by Newton) the word 'Brother' is followed by 'Bastard', 'Blasphemer', 'Brawler', 'Bedlam', 'Beggar', and 'Benjamite' (given that his brother was called Benjamin). While Sherlock may not have said anything quite so vicious, in a flash-back, Sherlock is seen being criticised by Mycroft. There is a long-standing feud between the Holme's brothers, as was a permanent tension between Newton and his half-siblings, while the Newton's and Smiths shared only a mother and Newton's memories of his mother leaving him at his home in Woolsthorpe to marry another man and have more children would cause a huge indent to Newton's psyche, the conflict between the Holmes is less specific. But in Sherlock's case, he had two loving parents and Mycroft was not a half-brother. However, it's hinted that there was another brother some time ago. Perhaps this notion caused the conflict they currently share.

Despite this, both Sherlock and Newton display kindness toward's their siblings later on in life, perhaps as a means to their situations, they come to realise that their childish ways aren't what is needed to sustain a healthy relationship within a family. Mycroft truly cares for Sherlock as Newton truly cares for his siblings, even giving his sister away at her wedding. Perhaps the notion of 'big-brother' gave rise in later life, when they (Mycroft and Newton) held high positions in society (Mycroft and Newton both worked for the government), and decided to use this as a way to help their family, both emotionally and financially.

Another enemy for Sherlock and Newton is more outlandish. In Sherlock's case, his arch-enemy would be Moriarty, the criminal mastermind behind most-notably robbing the Bank of England, and breaking past security for the Crown Jewels. With Newton, he came across an enemy worse than Hooke and Leibniz. His name was William Chaloner, and the reason he's described as being the worst (comparing to Sherlock) is that he is referred to by modern biographers as '...the Moriarty of coiners.' This counterfeit sly 'manufactured above 30,000 guineas. He sent several innocent men to the gallows for reward. He escaped the same fate himself five times, twice by strangling witness. But after a career crowned only with success, he made the mistake of taking on Isaac Newton' - Page 145 of Introducing Newton and Classical Physics. Like Newton, Sherlock displays a lack of emotion or sympathy towards criminals who have ended up on the wrong side of the law. In Series 2 Episode 1, Sherlock is talking to a criminal in prison who tries to convince Sherlock that he's innocent. Apart from correcting his grammar, Sherlock brushes off any heart he has to helping the man, proclaiming that he won't be 'hung', but will in fact 'hang'. Newton himself showed a fellow lack of sympathy. When Chaloner pleaded with Newton to spare his life, writing, 'O Dear Sr do this mercifull deed O my offending you has brought this upon me O for Gods sake if not mine Keep me from being murdered O dear Sr nobody can save me but you O God my God I shall be murdered unless you save me O I hope God will move your heart with mercy pitty to do this thing for me I am Your near murdered humble Servant'. Moriarty displays a plea in Series 1 Episode 3, where he acts on his alter-ego of Richard Brookes begging Sherlock to see that he had to act as Moriarty.

In another similarity, and I know I'm going out on a limb with this one, is the similarities between Irene Adler and Nicolas Fatio de Duiller. While it's obvious both are of different genders, it will be noted that both are in fact gay. However, the greater difference is how they relate to the ones they admire. Irene Adler has a repuation to start with as a 'dominatrix'. Fatio at the beginning with Newton holds a noble reputation as a brilliant mathematician. Irene is calculating from the start, and, unlike Fatio, uses Sherlock to reach her own way. Fatio does display manipulation in later life, but from the off, Fatio enthralled Newton. Like Sherlock, Newton was wrapped around Fatio's finger, and it seems like he was constantly on Newton's mind. As Newton educated Fatio about the 'Principia' and Alchemy, Sherlock educates Irene on how to 'deduce'. In Series 2 Episode 1, Sherlock is quizzing Irene about what happened to the hiker and the boomerang. Later, Irene is seen in Sherlock's dream, where she is in charge and deduces for him what happened instead. The tables have turned and Irene is playing Sherlock at his own game. And as such, Fatio displays a high intelligence towards gravity and plays physics. He plays Newton, asking for various sums of money, and most remarkably feigns an illness. Irene fakes her death to avoid people who want to kill her, Fatio seems to, not fake, but exaggerate an illness as a way of getting attention. In the end, both Irene and Fatio fall from grace as their admirers shun them to deprivation. Irene is told to get some other means of protection, and Fatio's break with Newton deminishes his reputation within the Royal Society as his involvement with the radical religious group the Camisard's leads him straight to the pillories. Irene is almost beheaded, but Sherlock manages to save her. Fatio, while he does return to Newton's life, is no longer seen as this 'brilliant' mathematician.

So both Irene and Fatio start with everything, then their involvement with the men they fall for lead to their demise. Irene and Fatio also share the idea that they have fallen for the men who would eventually have an effect on their fates, and who don't return the feelings displayed. But while I can conclude that Fatio and Irene were both gay, it's hard to tell for sure whether Fatio was in love with Newton. His attitude towards Newton, particularly towards the later half of their relationship, suggests that he had fallen out of love with Newton, although Newton still haboured feelings, whether they be romantic or platonic, yet he felt uneasy about being with Fatio when he started off with the Camisards. The two did eventually break apart, and like Irene and Sherlock, they did still stay in contact, although it was half-hearted.

Sherlock seems to have inherited some of the qualities that Isaac Newton had, but I feel that these similarites are more or less coincidence. There isn't anything to suggest Conan-Doyle took Isaac Newton and his contempories as inspiration, but it does reveal a light to Sherlock about how characters can come from people who aren't so different to anyone else. In terms of intelligence, it seems that while at the time, Newton was the true genius, Conan-Doyle's writing has us thinking about how we perceive the world in a new way, and Sherlock manages to out-shine Newton in intelligence. For a fictional character however, I feel that he's a little less revolutionary than Newton, and his impact hasn't changed the course of history.

So unless I can think of more, those are the similarities I have found between 'Sherlock' and Isaac Newton (& co.). I will more than likely add more to this in another post, probably debating more on the differences, and any more similarities I find along the way. Please feel free to comment and let me know what you think.

About Apples and Alchemy

This blog is a compilation and combination of aspects during Newton's life which are put under analysis, as well as looking into the myths, legends, and speculations surrounding Newton, and whether they are true or not. There also includes posts about media outlets which involve Newton's character, as well as my own interpretations on Newton and others related to him through family, friends and foes.

The titles of this blog 'Watch Me Split The Light' refers to Newton's discoveries on Light, where he split white light through a glass prism into a spectrum of colours. It also refers to how the legends of Newton - such as the apple and Diamond the Dog are put under scrutiny and examined with sources to back up the facts on such topics.

I always try to seek the source of what is said about Newton, whether it be taken as fact or fiction in general points of view. Instead of hearing or reading something at face value, I seek the original sources and summarise what is known, dividing opinion from truth, as such, much of what is written on this blog is a balanced but scrutinised view.

Isaac Newton is one of my heroes - if not my all-time hero, simply because he is truly fascinating, whether it was from what he discovered with light and forces, or from his personal life. 

I hope you find this blog enjoyable, and please feel free to comment!

Why I Am Such a 'Newtonian'

My first encounter with Isaac Newton comes from almost all children's experiences with him. They start out learning about how the apple fell on his head, to which he leaps up and cries out 'Eureka!' Boom! Gravity has been discovered. After that not much happened in my exploration of him.

Then a few years ago I joined the National Trust, and being from Lincolnshire, we (my family and I) went to several of the places nearby. One of the closest was Woolsthorpe Manor. I had no idea at the time that it had anything to do with Newton, but when I read up about it prior to visiting, I thought, 'Blimey! I had no idea Newton was a Lincolnite!' But I wasn't completely hooked (pardon) on him yet.

We went, and it was lovely. The house itself is a spectrum of information, and that first visit seemed to enlighten me further, however, I wasn't even hooked then!

It was only AFTER I had read a book from the library about him that I began to like the genius to a great height. So I decided that I'd rather like to visit WM again, which, being a NT member was no problem! The second visit was also very enlightening, it's said the more times you visit a single location, the more you learn about it, or rather, you learn more about the place and the people associated with it every time you go. And it's true! Every time I went (which was a lot!) I learned something new about Newton. And one time, I remember I went to the house and walked into his room, and the painting of him as an old man dominated the design. There, the room guide was talking about his personal life and how he never married. I asked him why, to which he replied, he was either 'celibate, or asexual'.

I thought...'What the frick does 'asexual' mean'.

It turned out that the characteristics for Asexuals were 'lack of sexual attraction'.

That was the moment I realised how amazing this guy was. Isaac Newton spoke to me on levels I had never before opened up to. The lack of sexual attraction towards anyone in his circle was something I felt I could relate to. I had never before come across an Asexual idol in my life, yet here he was, and here I am now, thinking just how much more was there to this man?

So, with Asexual enlightenment came exploration. I wanted to find out if Newton really was Asexual, and if so, what else lay in his mind, his life, his personality?

Quite a lot actually.

Well, with all my biography reading of him, and with the library at my disposal, I wanted to read his correspondence, his letters and memoirs. Everything I wanted to read about him I found at Grantham, a pleasant town I've long been day tripping to since I can remember. But now with my eyes open to Newton, I began to see him everywhere! (Seriously, if you haven't been to Grantham, Newton is everywhere you look).

At the library, I spoke to the lady who was helping me to gather books about him. And she said something that really made me think. Her words were, 'I don't like Isaac Newton personally, I find him boring.'

Boring...?
My immediate thought was, 'You've been reading the wrong biographies!'

How can anyone think Newton boring?! He is one of the most interesting people I've ever read about! Apart from discovering Gravity, he split the light to reveal colours, he invented a brand new telescope, he almost went blind by looking directly into the sun AND poking a bodkin into the back of his eye, he experimented with alchemy and went temporarily insane, his hair went white at an early age due to stress and Mercury, he spent a year at home working on the future 'Principia', making small windmills, sundials, and watermills, he changed the way coins were made, as well as becoming active detective to see counterfeit criminals hang. He also cheated, lied, and stole to get his own way, as well as being rude malicious and unsociable to practically everyone he met.

Yep I'd say he's utterly dull.

Given his persona, I'd say that, although his sexuality (or lack of) meant he never married or had children, seems to suit him better than being a family man. Given his own relatives and his upbringing I'm not surprised he stayed single.

But I would never say he was without love. There were a few women and men in his life that caused him to feel emotion on an intimate level, that which I can relate to. I, although I feel I may never have sex or get married, have not been without love as well. It's only the one man I'd ever truly loved I couldn't ever have.

However, for Newton, these conflicts didn't appear for him. In his childhood, a family friend had a daughter, Katherine Storer, who believed one day she and Newton would marry. However, this unrequited love was never to be, and she became a twice married woman to other men. The other who features most prominently, is Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, the cunning and brilliant Swiss who enthralled Newton to a new level. His impact on Newton was huge, more that people realise. Not only did he cause Newton distress when he became ill, but almost cost Newton his reputation after joining the 'Camisards'. Then Newton suffered his biggest breakdown soon after Fatio's departure from Newton's life. This breakdown led to Newton heading to London and joining the Mint, shifting his interest from Philosophy to Criminal Investigation. All the while, Fatio spirals downhill and ends up losing his reputation with said Camisards and spending three days in the pillories. Despite the promise Fatio showed to Newton, he became his own enemy. Fatio later returns to add his insult to Leibniz (who Fatio was once well aquainted with) during the Calculus Wars.

But with all the support and devotion Fatio showed to Newton throughout their four years together, Newton cast Fatio aside and realised that he was going to drag Newton down with him if he didn't get out. This and Fatio's homosexuality couldn't work with Newton's lack of sexual appetite. Although some biographers refer to Newton as a 'repressed homosexual', I believe that Newton was more asexual, if not 'homoromantic' if it pleases them. From what I've read, I believe Newton felt a love for Fatio, but due to his unwillingness to engage in the activities Fatio wanted, their relationship was doomed from the start.

As almost every Asexual will say, 'If sex without love can exist, then love without sex can too'. And if Newton was asexual, I don't think he was completely without love. And my own asexuality I can relate with him. I have found an idol who's life I can't relate completely with, although the lack of a father and a feeling of isolation, and my 100mph absent mind seem to fit nicely with his.

There is so much more I shall write on him at a later date, but the conclusion to this is that these points of his life I have such an interest for. His life is far from boring, and I seriously recommend reading about him.

Do it now.