Doctor Who: Wild Blue Yonder

If you're anything like me, you have been watching Doctor Who since at least the Christopher Eccleston era, and Russell T. Davies' (RTD) return with David Tennant as the 14th reincarnation of the Doctor (formerly the 10th) and Catherine Tate as Donna Noble was met with great enthusiasm. Now, I am no expect in science fiction, and episodes that take place in the future are probably better suited for people who love that area of story-telling, but my favourite episodes are always ones that took place in the past. Notably recent examples include 'Rosa' where they visit 1960's USA, and 'Demons of the Punjab' during the partition of India. I won't go into the writing side of things because I'm no expert in producing scripts, and - additionally, while I am by no means an expert in those eras, I did enjoy the fact they went to those times and touched upon those issues - barring the alien invasions and all that!

But in the latest tenure of Doctor Who, headed by RTD where 3 specials have been written for the 60th anniversary, an episode entitled: 'Wild Blue Yonder', there was something (a few things!) that stood out to me as an avid Isaac Newton nerd. 

Before I get into the details I want to stress that I have no problem with any of the cast who took part in this episode, and that my opinions are purely due to my devotion to historical facts.

So the episode starts with a scene set in 1666 at Woolsthorpe Manor, the place Sir Isaac Newton was born and grew up. It was here that he made most of his famous discoveries while avoiding a plague that that swept across England and into Cambridge (where he was enrolled at the time). It was also during this period he recalls (in contemporary accounts) that he witnessed an apple fall from the (famous) tree, sparking a legend that projected him being underneath and hit on the head by one (a memorable myth!).

In the episode the T.A.R.D.I.S. lands on the famous apple tree where Isaac Newton (played by Nathaniel Curtis) is sat underneath holding an apple. The landing causes a multitude of apples to fall - with some landing on his head. He gets up and looks at the T.A.R.D.I.S., saying: 'Odds bodkins, what the devil?'. The Doctor and Donna poke their heads out and apologise for the landing, and ends with a comment about 'mavity' (which I'll get to in a bit).

So let's address the first (and obvious) point.

There are many comments and posts on social media talking about this, and a lot of them take the general angle of: 'It's just a sci-fi show, why are you mad?'. Some have even compared it to other previous episodes, such as 'The Unicorn and the Wasp' with the character of Agatha Christie, or 'The Shakespeare Code' with (obviously) Shakespeare (an episode that ironically has the Doctor say: 'political correctness gone mad'), saying that these characters didn't do the things they were written to do. And they are correct, Christie didn't confront giant wasps, and Shakespeare didn't deal with alien witches. 

The episode with Winston Churchill entitled: 'Victory of the Daleks' is fiction since the real Churchill never met an actual Dalek (probably because they don't exist or something). 

Agatha Christie (left) portrayed by Fenella Woolgar (right).

However, what they miss is that all of the actors who were cast to play these real life historical people were chosen because they closely resembled the person they were playing. It leads the viewer to become more focused on the story at hand - however fictional because they recognise the figure from famous paintings or photographs, whether or not the events in the episode took place or not.

In 'Wild Blue Yonder', Isaac Newton's actor notably does not resemble the real Isaac Newton from the contemporary paintings he had commissioned. 

This is by no means any disrespect to Curtis, as his acting skills (albeit for only a short scene) displayed his capabilities. But, because he does not physically resemble the real Isaac Newton, I felt a little taken out of the scene.

Now, from my understanding, there is a quota the BBC have, which basically means they need to have a percentage of 'non-white' actors in each episode. But personally, I do not think this was the way to fulfil that quota since this was only the beginning and there was more than ample opportunity throughout the rest of the run time.

As far as I am aware, most people who hear 'Isaac Newton' will have a general idea of what he looked like: white hair, brown eyes, a long nose, and...white skin. 

The history geek in me was very surprised by this, and I was confused as to why they would cast an actor like Curtis to play Newton. I will get into the other inaccuracies later, but for a show that originally started as a way to educated children on history, it seemed to have neglected this point when it came to Newton. In all the previous episodes, the real life historical characters were portrayed by actors who could not just physically resemble them, but bring them to life with realistic mannerisms - even the character of Shakespeare, who has more hair and speaks with much less eloquence than the real Shakespeare and his plays could be recognised as the famous playwright without suspending disbelief.

With much backlash from fans and history lovers like myself, there has been an attempt to turn the narrative against them, calling people who are simply in line with historical accuracy 'racists' and 'bigots'. Even the casting director accuses these same people of 'villainising' minorities, when the truth is simply that people are not so closed minded to just accept that real historical figures can be played by anyone of any race, particularly when it comes to a time-travel show that is meant to educated the audience as well as have fun with the story. Had the Doctor travelled to a location in the Middle East or North Africa and met a famous scientist or innovator from there, then nobody would have batted an eyelid - especially not about their race. In all likeliness, they would have enjoyed it and been intrigued by this person from history who they may not have known much about but who contributed in their own way to human history. 

Regarding the BBC's or RTD's choices to cast Curtis. I hear a lot about actors who are cast because they were 'the right person for the role'. Perhaps this is the case in terms of enacting the behaviour of the character, but it only comes to life if the same person physically resembles them. Vinette Robinson, looks like Rosa Parks and could play her character, Ian McNeice - while larger than the real Churchill, looks like him and could recreate his mannerisms. Again going back to the quota, perhaps this was the only way they could fulfil it, although something tells me this isn't the case...

And, much like with Shakespeare, while we don't exactly know how Isaac Newton behaved or how he displayed his personality, we get an idea based on what others said about him at the time, and how he interacted with certain situations or events that have been recorded. And, while others may not like it, we certainly knew what he looked like.

I have never agreed with race-swapping - whether that be white actors playing non-white people or vice-versa. Even actors who put on an accent, such as an English actor having a Russian accent, somehow causes them to stand out a little too much from the story. And people who are race-swapping white historical figures to non-white is just doing more of the same but in a different context, and it is certainly not going to 'right wrongs' of the past.

Now, moving on to other inaccuracies relating to the scene (and me being nit-picky about it!) 

Newton in 'Wild Blue Yonder' is wearing quite fancy clothing. In 17th century rural Lincolnshire, Newton would likely not be wearing clothes that were better suited for someone in the French aristocracy, rather plain brown, cream or black wool breeches with a white cotton shirt and black or brown jacket. To me it looks like the costume designers re-used an outfit worn by one of the main actors from BBC 'Versailles', (Louis or Phillipe!) rather than Newton, who by all accounts was a University student, but who would have been living on a sheep farm at the time. Clothes like that would have been very impractical and far too extravagant for the setting (and probably a nightmare for his family to wash!). If I was to dress him in any colour, it would be crimson!

'Mavity'. This word (which the Doctor uses) is meant as a joke, since the myth/legend has Newton being struck by an apple and crying something like: 'Eureka! 'Gravity!'. The disbelief (at least for me) comes in when people at the time already knew gravity existed, but it was Newton who coined the name 'Gravity' from the Latin word 'gravitas' which means 'weight'. Literally everyone - even Newton's poor, illiterate family knew it existed, they just didn't understand how it worked or what it really was. It just seemed a bit...odd to do this, since - as I mentioned, Doctor Who was originally a series of history lessons, so for people who don't know as much about Newton might think Doctor Who was messing with history or not taking history seriously. Even when they did a similar thing with Shakespeare after 'Ten' (Tennant) gives him the line: 'All the world's a stage', it's still an original line, and the Doctor could have done the same thing with 'Gravity', but, alas.

So, with all that said, I do not claim to be an expert in all things Doctor Who, nor do I begrudge the actor taking on the role of such a famous genius. But as far as portraying real historical people, the actors cast should at least largely resemble them, otherwise it just takes you out of the story. And I leave you to have your own opinions on the episode and its subject matter. 

The Cat-Flap Myth...

...laid to rest.

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I concluded that Isaac Newton, the man who discovered gravity, invented a revolutionary telescope, wrote the revolutionary 'Principia', invented Calculus, and wrote books on religion to name a few, was not the type who would have owned a dog. It may surprise people to discover that Newton was not a nice person, he is far from the legend of a jolly man who sat under an apple tree, pondering how objects fall, when lo and behold! an apple falls directly on his head, leading him to discover that gravity exists. He was in fact a vicious, violent and manipulative man, who fought tooth and nail to get his own way, and when he was critised, he either thrashed out at his opponent, or shut himself away, refusing to speak to anyone. So it's no surprise to people like me that he would never have been fit to have in his company a pet.

In the explanation of 'Diamond', I found that there was little to no evidence to support the claim that his Pomeranian/Terrier/Spaniel called 'Diamond'/'Tray', knocked over a candle while his/her master went for a walk, setting fire to 20 years worth of work during his time at Cambridge. Not only that, but the story is mixed up between two completely different events at completely different times, all in the name of protecting Newton's temporary insanity. The only protection I see happening is shielding children from the truth about Newton by claiming he was calm and collected when his fictional dog burned his original papers on 'Opticks'.

This myth (which it is a myth) about 'Diamond' the fictional children's story version of Newton's dog, has lead me to prove that he would never have owned a cat either.

Again, there is little proof to suggest that a) Newton invented the cat-flap, and b) that he owned a cat at any other time.

In regards to the cat-flap, a lovely book gives a wonderful explaination as to why Newton never invented the cat-flap in the first place:

Who invented the cat-flap?
It wasn't Sir Isaac Newton.
It's an appealing idea that the father of gravitation, the leading theoretical scientist of his day and arguably the most famous celebrity in Europe at the start of the eighteenth century, invented something as mundane as a cat-flap. Sadly, the evidence doesn't stack up.
To this day, students at Cambridge are told that, while an undergraduate at Trinity College, Isaac Newton cut two holes in the door of his lodgings - a large one for his pet cat and a smaller one for its kittens. The story plays on a classic stereotype, the genius with no common sense - because there's no need for the smaller door. But we know it never happened. Newton's secretary and distant relative Humphrey Newton, was explicit: his master 'kept neither dog nor cat in his chamber'. Also, the doorways of most Cambridge lodgings of the period had a system of double doors. The outer doors were thick and heavy, and usually carved from a large piece of oak. The inner door acted as a draught excluder. Sawing holes through both would have been a major DIY project. And a self-defeating one - turning Newton's rooms into a wind tunnel.

While this explains the lack of a cat-flap at Cambridge, it drives the notion that he must have performed this action at Woolsthorpe, his childhood home where he returned to during the plague years. I asked twice the people at Woolsthorpe, once in person, where the staff member in question told me that all the inside doors were original (and there was no trace of hole in Isaac Newton's old bedroom), and on twitter:

If there is any other evidence to suggest he invented the cat-flap, please let me know, but it is clear he did not.

References:

The Second Book of General Ignorance (QI) page 74

Newton was Left-Handed???

So it came to my attention as I stumbled upon a post on how to cosplay Isaac Newton (not that I haven't got it down to a T anyway) that one of the steps tells the would-be cosplayer to start writing with their left hand. I thought this was odd, and so did a quick Google search, and it seems many people, particularly left-handed persons, believe that Isaac Newton was left handed.

This is big news to me, seeing as I have read several Newton biographies and not one of them states that he ever wrote with his left hand. Not unsurprisingly, they also group in other famous intellectuals who also aren't confirmed 'lefties'. I have never had any notion to consider that Isaac Newton was left-handed, on the mere basis that he was a genius and a world famous mathematician who invented Calculus and discovered the motions of Gravity and 'Opticks'. I had always assumed he was right-handed because a) schools of the time would have demanded their students write with their right hand, regardless of whether the student felt more comfortable writing with the left, and b) Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man and would also have taken it upon himself to write with his right hand anyway.

The only quote which is linked to a 'left hand' with Newton is:

'At some seldom Times when he design'd to dine in ye Hall, would turn to ye left hand, & go out into ye street...'

The only image which shows Newton using his left hand, is when he holds a compass on a page. This, while does suggest he uses his left hand, does not suggest he writes with it. Usually when a compass is used, the other hand is writing down the measurements and details from the compasses movements, then again he might naturally hold any object in his left hand which is why as a singular object he holds the compass.

Newton holds a compass with his left hand.

At the same time, the image above has been used the other way round, with Newton holding the compass with his right hand. As of yet I have been unable to find the original, but if the latter is the case, then it would dispute the claims of Newton being left-handed anyway.

In others, he holds his gloves with his right hand, he points with his right hand, and he rests his right hand on his left arm - which suggests a heavy inclination to him resting his writing arm on his left.

    

    

The book which seems to make a 'fact' of the myth is 'A Left Handed History of the World' by Ed Wright. It claims that the world without left handed people like Newton and Darwin (who was actually a right-handed person who studied left-handedness) would be void of intellectual provocation, as though only left-handed people are intellectuals and that right-handed people can't be as clever or have as high an IQ as 'lefties'.

I'm not stating that Isaac Newton was a confirmed right-handed writer, but it seems extremely unlikely given the era and his own personal views that he would have written with his left. I'm also not discriminating left-handed people, some of my friends are left-handed, but it seems that those who are claiming these famous intellects to be left-handed are doing so to back up a theory that is a little demeaning to right-handed people. I personally don't take any notice when someone writes with their left hand, so it seems like some are blowing a claim out of proportion (much like the Diamond myth) when their is zero evidence to support it.

I'm also not saying he couldn't have been left-handed, but given the lack of evidence and the strict right-handedness of religion during the 17th century, I will subconsciously continue to place Newton in the right-handed category until hard evidence comes my way.

Links:

http://www.wikihow.com/Cosplay-Isaac-Newton
http://www.rightleftrightwrong.com/history_recent.html

Images:
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00268/TH13-OPED-BRITAIN_N_268010e.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_ku-medium/18loufodl08s0jpg.jpg

Nicolas Fatio de Duillier

Since almost the beginning of my interest in Newton 4 years ago, I've become increasingly interested in another figure prominent in Newton's life, one Nicolas Fatio de Duillier. He appears in almost every Newton biography I could get my hands on, and his role in Newton's life is debatably important, not just in his role in the Newton vs. Leibniz conflict, but also how he fits in with Newton's breakdown of 1693. Although some biographers feel his position as Newton's no. 2 between the years 1689 - 1693 are not important, and try desperately to fit him in their accounts as little as possible. But I've always thought him to be a fascinating character in his own right, his background, rise to post in the Royal Society, and his downfall, credit him to be deserving of his own biography. 

However, it should be noted that he, like so many others, would always be linked with Newton, and therefore I feel I could never separate the two respectively. For me, the milestones in each of Newton and Fatio's lives are intertwined, and the parallels I've noticed between them are the reasons they worked so well together, as well as clashed near the end. Discussing their personalities, particularly Newton's is a post in its own, but Fatio's has also been lead to be peeled apart by biographers. The fact that Newton and Fatio came together and held strongly together so quickly says a lot about their natures, as well as the ever-examined case of their sexual (or non-sexual) identities. What Fatio does with many Newton biographers who attempt to come to a conclusion about Newton, is throw a spanner in the works. Newton's personality is almost unrecongnisable because of Fatio, and that says an awful lot, not just about the effect Fatio had over Newton, but also about Fatio himself.

Before I continue, I want to just point out that out of the few TV documentaries revolving around Newton that manage to include Fatio, they all seem to fail in one department; the pronunciation of his name. 

When I first read the name 'Fatio', in my head I heard 'FAT-ee-oh'. It always sounded strange somehow, as though his name was Anglicised for the purposes of easier pronunciation. But then after a while of saying it like that, I went and investigated how to pronounce it. I couldn't find anything about Fatio himself, but I did find an interview with the daughter of the late Maurice Fatio, who was a Swiss born American architect responsible for the Mediterranean-style house designs in Palm Beach. He was born in Geneva, not far from where our Fatio was born, and it was whilst reading the interview with his daughter Alexandria, that she said the way to pronounce 'Fatio' was 'FAH-see-oh', as in 'fascinating', not 'patio'. I felt a sense of revelation, and have continued to refer to him vocally as 'FAH-see-oh' since. There are also various spellings of his name, the far-fetched one being Nicholas Faccio du Duillier.

Also the name 'Duillier' gets pronounced 'Dwill-ee-ay', which is almost right, but in Swiss/French tongue, the pronunciation is more of a 'Dwee-yay' sound. His forename too though looks like it is pronounced as the Anglicised 'Nicholas' (Nick-o-lass), but is actually pronounced like the feminine variation 'Nicola' (Think Nicola Tesla!).

So to surmise, the correct pronunciation of his name is: Nicola Fasio de Dwee-yay...

Anyway, now that has been settled, I'll continue.

Background

Nicolas Fatio de Duillier was born in Basel on the 26th February 1664 to a wealthy Swiss family, the seventh of fourteen children to Jean-Baptiste and Catherine Fatio. In 1672, the family moved to Duillier, hence the name, and at age 18, Fatio went to Paris to work at the observatory under one Giovanni Domenico Cassini after having written to him suggesting a new method to determine the sun's distance from the earth, as well as an explanation for Saturn's ring. This was followed up by Cassini's theory of the zodiacal light, and Fatio, continuing his observations, repeated them at Geneva, leading them to be developed and published in 1686.

Rise to the Royal Society

William of Orange (BBC)

In 1683, an acquaintance of Fatio's, Piedmontese Count Fenil confided in him a plot to kidnap the Prince of Orange, with a letter approved by the King of France to proceed in the action. Fatio revealed everything to his friend Gilbert Burnet, who went with Fatio to Holland in 1686 to tell the Prince. As reward, Fatio was given a mathematical professorship and a private pension. He visited England in 1687, and concluded that he was happy there, stating that he would not return to the Hague until Prince Orange was King of England. Whilst in England, he gained a position in the Royal Society, and two years later in 1689, he first met Newton.

Newton

Although Fatio will always be linked with Newton, Newton will, to me, always be linked with Fatio. Their relationship has sparked many debates about the nature of their intimacy, and while a lot of people will say it doesn't matter, in a way it does. What we learn is not necessary the nature of Newton's feelings, but Fatio's. From letters he writes to his brother Jean Christophe that 'the reason he should not marry may last as long as [his] lifetime', which could mean one of three things, a) that he harbours homosexual feelings, b) that he harbours a life of celebacy, or c) that he harbours no feelings whatsoever for anyone. These notions are in league with Newton's own unconfirmed nature, and whether or not Newton had any feelings, whether they be sexual or not for anyone. Yet Newton has had relationships in the past which could suggest that he is not harnessing a heart of stone.

During the years he spent lodging with the Clarke family in Grantham, Newton became friends with Mr Clarke's step-daughter Catherine Storer. She is reputed to have been Newton's first love, although there is little to suggest that Newton had any heart-felt feelings for her, she perhaps thought that she and Newton would one day marry. However, the likely case is that the romance was unrequited, and that Newton spent more time thinking about inventing than anything or anyone else.

From there, Newton went to Cambridge University where he shared rooms with one John Wickens after both Newton and Wickens were unhappy with their current roommates. For 20 years, Newton and Wickens spent time working on Maths and alchemy, eventually ending in 1683. After the relationship, Newton only sent one letter to Wickens, along with Bibles that Wickens had requested from Newton. The letter was cold and short, and it suggests that Newton was in despair that they had parted after such as long time. Wickens in turn perhaps wanted the friendship to continue, but it never did, and the only time Wickens spoke of Newton after was to his son who wanted to know more about the great Isaac Newton whom his father had once known. Wickens gave little away, and the relationship continues to cause speculation.

Isaac Newton

In turn, Newton's relationship with Fatio causes a stir, as the ambiguity of the letters passed between them suggests secrets they hide from prying eyes. From the start, many of the letters talk of mathematical studies, and even alchemy, but in some of the sentences in these letters, they talk of meeting together, bringing each others letters and books, making plans to share rooms together, words of affection and kindness. Something that Newton was not prone to doing often, except perhaps towards his mother or to his niece later on, which explains how biographers interpret the relationship as familial rather than passionate.

It has often be wavered that the relationship between Newton and Fatio was like father-son, or master-student, with Newton taking on the 'parent' role while Fatio became the 'child'. Others suggest a 'messiah'-'disciple' relationship, as Fatio looked upon Newton as a god.

Yet some of the words imply otherwise. In one of the first letters Fation writes to Newton, he ends it with 'I am, with all my heart'. Prior to this, he talks to, near teases Newton about coming over to read a book written in French, and says 'It being writ in French, you may perhaps choose rather to read it hear with me'. He talks about how glad he is that Newton is coming to see him, and writes confidently about how he has finalised his theory of Gravity. Would others have dared to tease the ill-tempered Newton about his lesser linguistic skills as Fatio had? From historical accounts, Newton was prone to violent attacks, even towards those who were supposed to be his nearest and dearest, but Fatio was able to provoke Newton which no one else could even dream to do. Fatio had wrapped Newton around his little finger, and Newton was none the wiser.

Fatio tested the relationship by constantly spending time away, and for all their time together, a lot of it was spent apart. Fatio went to the continent frequently, but the letters they exchanged were littered with words of endearment, sentences to the effect of 'I'm thinking of you' were evident, and Newton yearned after Fatio, and after a while, it seemed Fatio was beginning to yearn after Newton. They found their differences balanced each other, Newton's fiery temper was cooled by Fatio's cool character, and in return, Fatio became impassioned, and  Newton was controlled.

In the height of their relationship, Newton goes to meet Fatio off the boat after the latter had been to the continent. To Newton's friends, they had no idea he was in London, or that he had gone to meet Fatio. It is implied that they went from there and lodged together for a week. What happened in this meeting is unknown, but it plays upon the secret nature of their relationship.

It is here I will bring about the fact that the times at which Newton and Fatio lived in were bound by religion and the law, and therefore any homosexual relationship was punishable by death. If Newton and Fatio had fallen in love, they knew perfectly well that any action they took to be physical which was discovered meant a risk to their lives. Newton held his reputation in high regard, even if when he was with Fatio he was given to temptation regarding new ideology, so he trod carefully, even pulling out at the last minute of publishing an article about Arianism (a heretical Christian doctrine), which his friend John Locke was going to publish. His feelings, whatever they may have been, certainly drew attention from his contemporaries regarding why he hadn't told anyone he was in London.

It has been suggested that the pair spent that week discussing alchemy, which would make perfect sense, as alchemy was also heresy and punishable by death, but if that was the case, wouldn't he have involved his friend Robert Boyle, a fellow alchemist, to entrust about the nature of this secrecy? Why only involve Fatio? Why not tell anyone that he was in London? Newton was practicing alchemy in his rooms at Cambridge University, so if it was about that,

St. James' Park, London

I say this, yet during the reign of Charles II, St James' park had been a hot-spot for all kinds of 'debauchery', including 'buggery', so it was perhaps not unusual to hear of two men being caught in the act during this time. Nevertheless, it was still a crime. As well as this, Newton was a devout Christian, so if he was falling for another man, he would have likely been fearful for his soul as well as his life.

Cracks in the Relationship

What I find interesting about their relationship is the direction in which they went. What I mean by this is that, with Newton, his life began as a son of a Yeo-farmer, his mother, whilst not unloving, had to have a hard-exterior, and in effect show this hardness to Newton. And while he wasn't poor, he was not bestowed with an awful lot of wealth, and the chance of his name meaning anything to anyone after his death was slim. For Fatio, he was born into wealth, his mother molly-coddled him, he had a high education, he traveled far and wide, his life, as it was perceived at the time, could only get better.

Yet this is not what happened. Newton's life got better with time, whilst Fatio's got worse. It mainly has to do with the decisions they made, but it also has to do with their personalities. Newton was a single focused worker. When he started something, he wasn't content until it was finished to the best of his capabilities. For Fatio, if something didn't work out, he left it, and moved on to the next fad, whether it be teaching or watch making. Newton was a natural philosopher, an alchemist, and a devout Arian. Fatio was a polymath. Their conflicting personalities may have lead to their break-up, as one went up, the other went down, and there was little either could do to stop this.

For Fatio, his life had been full of opportunities, but that isn't to say he was careless, as many biographers who talk about Fatio seem to come to the conclusion that he was a reckless follower, who got mixed into the wrong crowds, and ended up losing all of his influence and respect. However, this 'reckless' youth was what attracted Newton in the first place, and it was what kept them together for nearly 4 years. But as it was, because Fatio had a tendency to be indiscreet, for one mentioning alchemy in letters, getting involved with the Camisards, and leading Newton on.

Remember, Newton's personality was vulnerable, so any pressure placed on Newton would not have ended well. His relationship with Fatio tested this vulnerability to the limit, and it is said that after the break-down following their break-up, Newton's mind was never the same again.

But how did it come to the break-up in the first place?

For a start, taking into consideration their conflicting personalities, Newton first suggested to Fatio that they should share rooms. Now considering how this opposes Newton's regular nature, Fatio had made an imediate impression. From there, Fatio lead Newton on, not in a cruel or heartless way, for Fatio was very taken with Newton, and vice versa, but he and Newton both wanted something they couldn't perhaps have. As I mentioned, the times they lived in meant that same-sex relationship were illegal, so if there was anything going on between them, it was likely never consummated. Therefore, the tension and strain of the relationship would have put pressure, not just on Newton, but on Fatio too.

During the last years they were together, Fatio increasingly took time away from Newton. Now this perhaps has nothing to do with them not being able to express themselves in a promiscuous manner, but more likely it was to do with Fatio having to take time away to visit family in Switzerland. His mother had died, family affairs needed to be taken care of, and issues with money needed to be settled. Newton would have been understanding of this, as he himself had to go through a similar experience, albeit he would have taken charge of everything whereas Fatio would have been on the fringes of things (his elder siblings would likely have taken the reigns). So when Fatio does come back, Newton is keen to try and keep Fatio nearby, mainly with them sharing rooms.

Now Newton, as I said, was not one for persisting in trying to make a relationship work. As even his 20 year relationship with John Wickens ended swiftly. But Newton was keen to have Fatio near him. Yet Fatio, who by now was probably not in the mood to keep going in a relationship with little to no solid physical affection, so when Newton suggests for the last time that they share rooms, Fatio teases him in implying that Newton is not as open about what he wants from him. This could mean that, while Newton is trying, Fatio knows that there is no point in continuing the relationship, and so does he best to ease his way out of it.

Not only that, but Fatio's 'fads' get out of hand, and his involvement with the Camisards leads Newton to question his association with the Huguenots. Fatio may have been trying to find his own way in the world of religion as Newton had, but instead of following Newton's path, he takes the other route and goes all out, expressing his activism to anyone who cares, including Newton and his friends, who succeed in persuading Newton not to go and listen to a hearing of the Camisards. This extreme group would have lead Newton to go down the same route as Fatio eventually did. Had it not been for Newton's friends, Newton's reputation would have fallen, and his fame would have suffered, not just during his lifetime, but for years to come.

Alchemy was practiced by notables like Isaac Newton,
and even King Charles II.

It is also suggested that Newton and Fatio's relationship was based on a basis that Fatio was always going to be second best to Newton. If Newton had plans to make Fatio great, perhaps even as great as Newton, then he didn't do it well. Again, this could be because of their personalities, but I believe it's due to the time in which they meet. Fatio first met Newton when Newton had first achieved fame with the Principia. Fatio may have believed that that was where Newton was going to stop, and let Fatio take over in drawing up a second edition where Fatio had 'corrected' it. However, again Fatio's personality took over, and he pushed his 'No. 1' position next to Newton too far, leading him to be known as 'Newton's Ape'. It is also possible that Newton had spent more time with Fatio on alchemy than Maths, and therefore Fatio had no chance of ever being as successful as Newton.


This is where their parallels come in, as Newton grew in fame, Fatio's rise was short-lived, and he took a wrong turn to his downfall. Fatio was perhaps always over-shadowed by Newton's greatness to ever be noticed, even if he had been allowed to publish his edition of the Principia. Not only that, but as Newton had drawn Fatio into a world of alchemy, Fatio was perhaps naive about how serious it would be to expose even the slightest hint of alchemy practice, and he began leaving papers around which would not only expose Fatio, but Newton about the pair's involvement in the practice. As I said, Newton was careful not to let slip of any secrets he had which would ruin his now famous reputation, and seeing as Fatio was endangering this, he might have thought it best to part from the younger man.

Not only this, but Fatio struck Newton with a blow when he declared that he was terminally ill. He complained of an ulcer in his stomach, and wrote to Newton about how comforting it was to know Newton had been in his life. To Newton, he must have read it thinking 'this is the last time he'll write to me'. In desperation, Newton begged Fatio to try and recover by living with him in Cambridge. But in the next reply from Fatio, it seemed that the cause for panic was short-lived, as he made a swift recovery and wrote to Newton about what had been wrong with him.

To many biographers, Fatio seemed to display a sense of hypochondria, something that perhaps wasn't alien to Newton, but it was the way in which Fatio seemed to describe in detail about his illness that skeptics decipher as trying to attract sympathy, although it is unclear as to why. Perhaps it was due to Fatio's decline in popularity, after being given the nickname of 'Newton's Ape', or maybe he was genuinely ill, and the long description of ailments was his way of dealing with it. Whatever it was, Newton was filled with concern, and tried unsuccessfully to make Fatio live with him. Perhaps Fatio was doing Newton a favour by failing to decide whether to live with him or not, as mentioned in the letter to his brother, he almost hints of his supposed sexuality, and in this, he could have realised that he was putting Newton at risk. Maybe Fatio cared for Newton, and tried to ease himself out before anything got Newton into trouble. What Fatio didn't realise was that Newton was vulnerable mentally as well, and that this split would cause Newton serious psychological harm.

So, as well, as alchemy secrets being let slip, Fatio's increased association with the radical Camisards, his constant trips away, and failing to reach anywhere near as high a position as Newton, Fatio must have felt at a loss when he, after spending nearly 4 years with Newton, hadn't gained as much as he may have wanted. His initial aim was probably to use Newton as a stepping stone towards his own fame, yet Newton, in his ignorance, had used Fatio to help him explore alchemy, heretical religions, and even aid him in the newer editions of his Principia (as Fatio had pointed out several mistakes, yet had no credit for them).

The split came around the time when Newton, who was in London, went to visit him in May, and then again in June 1693. No record of what went on during those meetings survives, but it marked the end of the most emotionally charged relationship of his life. The letters between them stopped their mutual praising, and the only times they corresponded after that were rare, and only to note minor things that were happening at the time. It wasn't to say that they never spoke to each other again, but the passion that was felt during those 4 years ended, and Fatio never lived with Newton, his never oversaw the 2nd edition of the Principia, and his name was all-but lost below Newton's.

In 1693, Newton had a massive nervous break-down, and the cause of this is debated. Fatio certainly had something to do with it, as the last letter, and their last intimate meeting was during this year. Fatio left Newton's company, and Newton took time to recover, although never fully doing so. He instead dropped the world of science and focused on his persuits of the Royal Mint, securing a place as Warden. Fatio went on a pilgrimage, and eventually came back to take up a place in the Camisards.

Religion

From Newton's perspective, his 'heretical' religious views are only viewed as such because they dismiss the Holy Trinity, where God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. Newton believed that this was not right, and that the 'true' Christianity, Arianism, was overthrown for the Anglican doctrine. Fatio went one step further in joining an even more radical religion called the 'Camisards', also known as the French Prophets, who were a Protestant group of people who preached that they could raise the dead and speak in tongues. Fatio had managed to engage himself as their secretary, and his contemporaries couldn't understand how someone with such a brilliant mind would join such a radical (if not ridiculous) group. I wondered if the same people who criticised Fatio would do the same if they had known of Newton's own 'heresy'. It seemed that this particular religion wasn't a good one, and it cost Fatio dearly.

The Camisards were outcasts from France and came to
England spreading their beliefs.

But why the Camisards? Why not follow the same religion as Newton, seeing as Newton was Fatio's idol, and due to his ritual of copying Newton in his 'extra-curricular' activities which gained him the nickname of 'Newton's Ape' would have made sense if he had chosen one similar if not the same.

It was at this stage that Fatio seemed to be moving away from Newton, perhaps trying to get out of the relationship without meaning to hurt Newton in the process. It could also be a move to make sure that any negativity between the pair fell squarely on Fatio's shoulders, so that if anyone had found out about Newton's Arianism, Fatio would be viewed as the worse 'sinner'. Or it could simply be that he was drawn to their views, even if they were rather over the top. For a sensible man like Fatio, it seemed that the other members of his and Newton's circle of contacts thought it was unlike Fatio to join such a group.

The Camisards weren't just outcast from their original country of France, they were then outcast from England, and anyone found to be preaching in public their radical views were swiftly sent down.

Fatio, being their secretary, joined them in the pillory's.

Downfall

Fatio's involvement with the Camisard's was one of the events which lead to Fatio's eventual downfall, and also his slide out from the Royal Society. While he never officially left, he merely stayed on the fringes of scientific circles and spent his time elsewhere doing other activities.

What I found was that Fatio's embroilment with Newton from the off was the start of his downfall. Siding yourself with Newton. trying to be the younger, new wave of Newton ideals, trying to improve Newton's work, even trying to become Newton himself, was only ever going to lead to heartbreak. No one that came across Newton was ever able to outshine him, which is where Fatio had tried and failed to do. He believed he could take Newton's ideas and develop them into something greater, but instead he descended.

It was perhaps the relationship, in which both Newton and Fatio were taken with each other, saw that it needed to stop. Perhaps Fatio saw this revelation first and decided it was in both men's best interest that he try and leave as soon as possible. Perhaps because Newton's religion or sexuality prevented Fatio from making Newton succumb to his needs. Perhaps in the end, Newton had wanted Fatio to stay with him, despite the social standing and the law, but that Fatio wasn't willing to risk both their necks for the sake of their happiness.

Whatever the reason, Fatio eased himself out of the relationship, first by staying away for a number short trips to the continent, to London, and to his family. Then he developed an illness which may or may not have been entirely genuine, but it lead to Newton trying to bring Fatio closer. And finally, he became entangled in the world of the Camisards. This move was largely taken up after the split, and when Fatio found himself in the pillory's, Newton did nothing to help him. That wasn't to say other's didn't try, but perhaps Newton had been hurt so badly by Fatio leaving that he thought he deserved a time in the stocks. Fatio had some allies as he was saved from the violence of an angry mob by the Duke of Ormonde's influence.

Fatio left England and went over to the continent to spread the Camisard influence before he came back and settled. He must have lost interest in its cause as it seemed he didn't return back into any more trouble.

Yet although Fatio was charged and sentenced, he bounced back. He never completely stayed away from Newton, nor from the Royal Society, but his three day sentence stained his reputation for the rest of his life, and he was never as close to Newton as he had been for those four years.

Fatio did go on to develop a method of drilling rubies which made watches keep time more accurately. He patented the idea and he even gave two of these new watches to Newton. It was this little gesture which made me think that there were still kind feelings between them.

The Calculus War

The history of the Calculus War started before Fatio entered the Newton scene. As far as anyone who has delved into its roots, Newton had sent a transcript to his former tutor, Isaac Barrow, and then made it to the continent, which passed hands across the scientific minds in the countries they resided. One of these hands was Gottfried Leibniz, who had read Newton's manuscripts on tangents, which included Newton's early methods of Calculus, a differing method to Leibniz's later version (one that is still used to this day). The fact that Leibniz had perhaps briefly seen these manuscripts suggests an air of plagarism.

However, it is disputed that Leibniz did not take in any of the methods used by Newton, and had in fact come up with a method all on his own. Yet because of Newton's reluctant nature to publish anything immediately, he had inadvertently allowed Leibniz to take the lead in publication of his work. Newton's Principia and later editions included his own version of Calculus, but these were published much later after Leibniz had published his version. Yet neither party were bothered by this, as Leibniz had his fame, and Newton had his. They respected each other's work, and Leibniz even praised Newton's intellect.

It wasn't until a certain Nicolas Fatio de Duillier stepped back onto the Newton scene after a turbulent few years that the Calculus War really began.

Fatio had perhaps tried to win back Newton's favour in this move, and in 1699 he kicked off the War by accusing Leibniz of plagarising Newton's form of Calculus. For a while nothing happened, not blows were struck, and neither Newton nor Leibniz really felt inclined to make a move.

Yet in 1704, an anonymous hand accused Newton of plagarising Leibniz of Calculus, suggesting that Newton had borrowed the idea of fluxional calculus from Leibniz...despite Newton having written his work during the plague years at Woolsthorpe - before he had even entered the Royal Society and had his work circulated.

Gottfried Leibniz

It has been suggested that because Leibniz had not thought to consult Fatio on a problem seeking a solution, but instead had chosen Newton, Fatio had retorted by attesting that Leibniz was the 'second inventor' of Calculus. He encouraged the Royal Society to back Newton in the dispute.

What is interesting is that Leibniz appealed to Newton to acknowledge him as an independent inventor, however, Newton jumped on board with the dispute and fought Leibniz in claiming sole invention of Calculus, one war that was not won by Leibniz.

In stirring up the conflict, Fatio had established Newton as the inventor of Calculus at the time, but in later centuries, both sides of the North Sea have come to the conclusion that Newton and Leibniz invented Calculus independently. It could be perhaps that Leibniz had seen Newton's manuscripts and gained the idea for his own version, but never once did he steal directly from Newton's own work.

I personally believe that, while they did invent independently, Newton was first in the idea of modern Calculus (I say modern because I'm not going deep into the history of Calculus...that would take me back to ancient Greece and India), but that Leibniz invented a simpler method later on, which modern calculators and mathematicians use to this day.

Because of Newton's fame, he had grown a vast circle of allies to back his fight, and in the end, he won. Leibniz died in 1716 when the dispute was still on-going. Because of his death, he could no longer defend himself, and the case was in favour of Newton.

Not only had Fatio's involvement in the Calculus War enabled Newton to take the title of 'first inventor', he had also inadvertently ruined Leibniz's reputation. But what did Fatio gain from all of this? He certainly didn't get back in favour with Newton, although it is implied that they never went completely cold on each other, and he didn't get back in full favour with the Royal Society. It seems that his involvement merely lead to him becoming a prime member of the Newton-Leibniz dispute, and if it wasn't for him, scholars wouldn't still be talking about it to this day. They would just have accepted Leibniz as the first inventor of Calculus instead of Newton, so in a way, Fatio was Newton's silent hero in building up Newton's list of inventions, and ultimately his genius. Yet if Fatio hadn't done this, someone much later would have noted the history, and therefore taken Fatio's spotlight in pointing out the facts.

Inventions

What I love about Fatio is that despite his mistakes, he actual came up with some pretty ingenious inventions. One of which I have mentioned was the procuring of jewels (mainly rubies to begin with) in watches, which enabled them to run smoother and with a more accurate measure of time. Talk about a Swiss watch-maker.

Newton's Tomb at Westminster Abbey

He also originated the 'push' or 'shadow' theory of gravitation, known today as 'Le Sages' theory of gravitation. Unlike Newton, Le Sage recognised Fatio as the original creator of the theory, but developed the idea into his own.

Not only that, but he also introduced improvements to telescope glasses, realised that a ship's motion through water could help to grind corn, raise anchors and hoist rigging, and measured the height of Geneva's mountains.

He also planned a second edition to Newton's Principia, but his 'improvements' weren't acknowledged in later additions.

And finally, when Isaac Newton died at the age of 84 in 1727, Fatio helped John Conduitt, Newton's half-niece's husband, to write the inscription on Newton's tomb.

Summary

The thing that fascinates me about Fatio is how little he is acknowledge in the scientific spectrum. His association with Newton alone is prize to be noted, yet only those who know about Newton through reading biographies of him, know anything about Fatio. For me, Fatio is a tragic hero who through his faults has become a favourite in my heart, and while I will always love Newton, Fatio is equal to him on so many levels, not just in their relationship, or even in their personalities, but in how unique and individual they are, Both are enigmas which finds more favour with Newton (rightly), but Fatio seriously needs his own biography.

Further Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Fatio_de_Duillier
Isaac Newton, The Last Sorceror - Michael White
Newton - Peter Ackroyd
Newton's Notebook - Joel Levy
Newton's Gift - David Berlinski
A Portrait of Isaac Newton - Frank E. Manuel

Picture Credits
https://i2.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Fatio.jpg
http://static.bbc.co.uk/history/img/ic/640/images/resources/people/william_iii_of_orange.jpg
http://www.calculushumor.com/uploads/1/2/0/2/12023481/249770465_orig.jpg
http://www.britainisgreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/31_06_8-St-James-s-Park-London_web.jpg
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52b4e29fe4b08c16746a9eac/t/54696225e4b0ddf2508d90da/1416192550036/
https://ravelledesoterica.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/dragoon-cartoon.jpg
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/images/leibniz.jpg
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/__data/assets/thumbnail/0003/85953/Newton-monument.jpg

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.

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.