MDMD(4): Equation, p. 134

[Matthew P Wiener]

Andrew Dinn writes:
>Matthew P. Wiener writes:

>> So far as anyone knows, Newton lived and died a virgin.  The mercury
>> poisoning he is believed to have suffered from would have been from
>> his numerous alchemical experiments.

>The little I had read - second-hand, from a newspaper review of a
>biography, for what it is worth (not much from the sound of it) - had
>it that he thought he believed he had caught venereal disease from
>prostitutes but that he could not have done because he never had
>sexual relations with one.

What biography is this?  It sounds like one I'd wish to avoid.  Unless,
of course, this is genuine new evidence.  I'm very dubious, though.

>			    In other words it was his paranoia which
>caused him to apply the mercury. I recall the biographer offering this
>as an `explanation' of the poisoning in contradiction of the previous
>asumption that it was his experiments with alchemy. I take it your
>explanation is more commonly accepted.

Yes.  Newton *was* doing alchemical experiments, and was exposing himself
to dangerous amounts of mercury as a result.

>> >       From the little I have read about his life this cosmological
>> >obsession was at the core of his insanity.

>> Read a little bit more.  His insanity took the form of very strange
>> moods and liberal amounts of paranoia.  Having a cosmic vision in
>> itself, derived from his own astounding scientific successes, is
>> nowhere close to insanity.

>No, it isn't. But, as I said, the biog under review implied that his
>madness centred around some rather wacko mix of astrology and
>astronomy, and also manifested, I recall now that you mention it, in
>an interest in alchemy.

I fail to see how any late 17th century interest in such topics counts
as "wacko" or "potty".  Strong interest today (as if it were real, that
is) would certainly rate as such (and would need no explanation either),
but back then, they were still avenues of legitimate research.

>			 It also suggested that the mercury was
>probably what drove him to such potty conclusions. What would you
>recommend by way of further reading?

NEVER AT REST is considered the definitive biography.  The one under
review sounds like a serious hack job.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba at sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)