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.