Customer Reviews

Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer (Helix Books)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I had been a little disappointed in White's biography of da Vinci, Leonardo: The First Scientist (for which see my review), because I felt he had overstepped the boundaries of the available data and wandered vastly into the realm of speculation. When his book Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer came to my attention I was dubious, but I needn't have been. This volume seems very well researched, and what speculation the author offers is not beyond that which arises naturally from his material. In fact, it is not much beyond that which other authors have also raised.

Although I have never read a book entirely dedicated to the physicist, I have often run across biographical information on the man in my other reading on the topic of physics. My first introduction to Newton as a person was in an early book by Carl Sagan. The latter seemed inclined to view Newton as a petty, introverted man who came up with a brilliant contribution to science but who was otherwise enmeshed in the totally unscientific pursuit of alchemy, an endeavor that ultimately poisoned him after first driving him mad. It must be admitted, however, that Sagan's primary purpose had not been a biography of Newton. White definitely gives the subject a better and fairer hearing. In The Last Sorcerer, he makes it obvious that Newton's dabbling in the occult sciences, while less productive of useful information itself, helped structure his way of thinking about other problems which did. Furthermore, he gives credit to the man's thorough knowledge of metals, solvents, furnaces and techniques involved in alchemy, in short of incipient chemistry, as a contributing factor to his later successes in science and other endeavors. He notes too that other notable and productive scientists of the time are known to have dabbled in this subject. This after all was a time of emergent science, when anything yet seemed possible.

In going beyond Newton the genius of physics, White brings the whole man to the fore. He explains some of his social background (upper middle class for the day), his ambition (the YUPPIES of that generation), the origin of his paranoia regarding his work (not unlike the high-tech world's concern over the loss of rights to its intellectual property through theft), and his pettiness (though here White wanders farthest into speculation). It was interesting to know that Newton had enjoyed several careers during his long lifetime. He brought his considerable talents and drive to the rolls of academic, politician, Master of the Mint (during which time he also became a detective and public prosecutor of sorts), and Royal Society president.

I have to admit to a certain shock--obviously felt, too, by those of his time--at Newton's vicious persecution of scientific rivals. The degree to which he and Robert Hooke went at it, with the latter coming off as the villain, was surprising enough. The battles between Newton and the Astronomer Royal Flamsteed, whose life's work was virtually stolon without compensation for Newton's benefit, and that between him and the brilliant mathematician Leibneiz, with whom Newton now shares the laurels for the creation of the Calculus, is appalling. It certainly shows the degree to which even our scientific heros participate in "feet of clay!" It also shows the pitfalls of hero worship. In the end White reminds us that wonderful work can come from people we don't really like very much, which reminds us too that, unlike technology and art wherein things are invented or created and are therefore one of a kind, science is a body of discoveries. If not Einstein, then probably someone else. Maybe later than it actually occurred, but still eventually. Newton was apparently enough aware of this fact to guard his priority with all the aggressiveness of a lioness her cubs.

I found it most interesting the degree to which Newton and others of his time were self taught. Although many of the scientifically productive men of the time received university education, as did Newton himself, much of their overall knowledge had been gleaned by their own studies. It has always been my opinion that our educational system tends to discourage the student's curiosity by channeling it forcefully along specific courses, without due attention to that individual's personal interests. While not all of us will be Newtons, and certainly not all of us have his gift of concentration and driven singleness of purpose, most might benefit from a greater latitude in what we read when we are learning to read, and how we use mathematics when we learn them.

Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer is a well-written, well-researched, and insightful account of the life of one of the (maybe THE) most influential and important scientists and mathematicians in history. Michael White, as implied by the title of his work, has an ambitious thesis to his study: that alchemy was key to Newton's ground-breaking discoveries. According to White, without his controversial pursuit of alchemical goals like the Philosopher's Stone, Newton would not have established his theory on gravity, etc. While the idea is intriguing and probably true (one's interests and studies in specific areas will often influence what one discovers and how one understands other areas), White provides very little evidence to support his thesis and relies mostly on speculation and guessing.

As a biography, I found this book intellectually stimulating, yet very readable with many interesting details that help the reader understand Newton as a scientist and as a person. Although the author claims at the beginning to concentrate on Newton's alchemical research, the book is a thorough biographical account that covers his troubled youth, his autodidactic study at Cambridge, his most important findings (theory on light and colors, gravity, calculus), his religious views and study in prophesy, his work at the Mint (he was instrumental in England's recoinage), his Presidency in the Royal Society, and his relationships with fellow intellectuals including feuds with Robert Hooke, John Flamsteed, and Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz. White also devotes what I believe to be too many pages on Newton's niece and her affair/marriage with Lord Halifax.

White examines many different areas of Newton's life and also provides background information to help the reader understand the intellectual and scientific foundation that led to Newton as well as the popular biographical accounts of Newton until the 1930s when John Maynard Keynes purchased some of Newton's documents on alchemy from Sotheby's. Newton claims that earlier biographers ignored or covered up Newton's interest in alchemy. White does an excellent job explaining how Plato and Aristotle's reliance on syllogistic logic rather than experimentation stifled the growth of knowledge for centuries (31). Newton was the first to apply fully the scientific method that is used today (182). As to Newton's findings, White is very adept in scientific principles, but does not bog down his work with too much esoteric jargon. He describes Newton's research (he experimented with light in dangerous ways that almost damaged his eye sight, pp. 58-61), his thoughts, ideas, and hypotheses found in his notebooks, documents, and correspondence.

Where White's work becomes weak is when his branches off into alchemy (mostly in chapters 6 and 7). It is not that White does not explain alchemy well, or does not outline Newton's work in alchemy, or ignores the influence of alchemists like Michael Maier and Robert Boyle; it is that White makes the sweeping claim that alchemy was key to Newton's discoveries with little to back it up. He will introduce alchemy, its history, its disciples, and its influence on Newton and how Newton went about his alchemical studies with a furnace in his room at Cambridge, and then will throw in statements like "The creation of the Star Regulus was PROBABLY one step along this road [to a full-blown theory of gravity]" (146), "It is QUITE POSSIBLE that, by manipulating the tale [about documents Newton lost in a fire at Cambridge], they managed to neatly dismiss Newton's alchemical interests" (148). White maintains that the popular apple story was created by Newton to cover up alchemy's role in his theory on gravitation (no evidence provided). In examining Newton's biblical study, White makes a connection between Solomon's temple and Newton's concept on universal gravitation and then admits "There is no surviving record of an explicit reference to the Star Regulus or the Temple of Solomon to support the idea that they may have symbolized an attractive force" (pp. 159-62). Later in the book, White becomes preoccupied by Newton's relationship with upstart intellectual Fatio de Duillier and, while discussing their relatively intimate correspondence (White implies a possible homosexual relationship), suggests that the censored parts of the letters had to do with alchemy (238). White adds that Fatio "may have" spoken of alchemy in front of other intellectuals and that he possibly got Newton interested in the black arts (291-99). Of course, White seized on Newton burning his papers at the Mint weeks before his death: "the burning incident MAY have some bearing on the conclusion we reach about this. Did Newton venture along paths leading far from his study of alchemy-paths we would now consider those of pure magic, pure heresy?" (355).

I am not criticizing White for asking these questions or for speculating about Newton's secret endeavors. My problem is that White makes the claim that alchemy was key to Newton's discoveries and makes it the thesis of this book and not only doesn't cover alchemy throughout the book (mainly only in 2 chapters and sporadically sprinkled through the rest of the work) but his proof is only speculation and rumor. He doesn't, for example, draw connections between Newton's alchemical documents and his theories. Near the end of his book, White throws in this puzzling paragraph: "Unlike the central theme of this biography-that Newton arrived at his theory of gravity PARTLY [he backs off a little from his thesis here] through his exploration of alchemy and early biblical theory---the notion that he crossed the line into black magic is not supported by any hard evidence, but the circumstantial evidence available offers an intriguing possibility" (358). This sentence applies to his central thesis as well. I almost gave this book 3 stars but decided to compromise as it would be head and shoulders above other books I've given 3 stars. Actually, I would have given this book 5 stars, as it shows excellent care and scholarship, if he wasn't so adamant in claiming to prove a thesis he did not support with information provided in The Last Sorcerer.

In his biography of Newton, White takes issue with the mythology built up by numerous previous biographers of Newton's highly rationalistic approach to science and mathematics. Instead, he presents Newton as a mystic and compulsive figure at odds with much of the thinking of what will become the scientific revolution.

While White's investigations of Newton's intensive work in alchemy is very interesting and somewhat insightful as to understanding some of the places from which Newton may have drawn inspiration; many of his other assertations are not as bold as he presents or may be somewhat inaccurate. An example of this is Newton's strongly Arian views regarding religion. While certainly at odds with the theological dispositions of Cambridge, Newton's views were shared by a number of other historical figures of the time including John Locke. White fails to place Newton's theological thinking within a broader context of thought in Europe and in Britain at the time and, hence, sensationalizes the issue.

Nowhere is this more obvious and evident than in White's treatment of Newton's relationship with a young French mathematician. Without a great deal of substantiation and in spite of Newton's other relationships White supposes this relationship to be a product of Newton's homosexual tendancies rather than an obsessive-compulsive personality. Again, it seems that the book is written more in a style of the British tabloids than in responsible biography.

What does make this biography worth reading is its attempt to examine the psychological makeup of Newton and what factors might have influenced that makeup.

A serious student of Newton's life will find this biography an interesting read but should temper it by also investigating the recent biography by James Gleick.

This is from a review I wrote for the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Michael White, a British journalist who specializes in popular science (he is best known as the co-author of a book on Stephen Hawking, and also wrote "The Science of the X-Files") seeks to explain Newton's scientific insights in terms of his well-known interest in alchemy. With regard to his work on gravity, at least, this theory has long been widely accepted: In an era in which forces were understood in terms of material objects pushing upon one another, to realize that gravity constituted "action at a distance" was seemingly to truck with the more mystical notions of alchemy. Had Newton not been sympathetic to these concepts (although he insisted on testing them scientifically, and never achieved positive results), he may never have realized that gravitational force does indeed involve invisible powers of attraction.

Born in 1642 to a young country woman whose husband -- a property-owning but illiterate yeoman -- had died two months earlier, Newton enjoyed material security but emotional uncertainty to a peculiarly painful degree. His mother remarried when Newton was three, moving into her husband's house but not taking Isaac with her. A beloved only child until then, Isaac was banished to his grandparents' home, and could only watch in resentful exile as his mother gave birth to three half-siblings. By the time his mother was again widowed, Newton was eleven, and had already nurtured the seeds of a lifelong resentment, suspiciousness, and secrecy.

The outlines of Newton's later life -- as a teenager, he proved unfit for managing his father's estate so was sent off to Cambridge, where he remained for the next thirty-four years -- are well known, and White plows through them dutifully, pausing to discuss matters of history and elementary physics in alternate chapters. White compare poorly with other biographers of Newton: he often writes badly, and frequently makes mistakes in matters of history, which is evidently outside his expertise.

More troublesome, however, is his tendency to make excessive claims for his thesis. White (who earlier called an ill-advised book on Isaac Asimov "the Unauthorized Biography") here calls Newton "the last sorceror," a sensational reference to the Cambridge professor's one-time interest in alchemy. Newton was not, however, the last scientist interested in alchemy (although his was almost the last generation of scientists that could reasonably think its claims worth investigating). Moreover, the word "sorceror" has a specific meaning, and cannot be used as a synonym for alchemist. White's title is simply irresponsible, and an ominous harbinger of his book's other problems.

White exaggerates Newton's need to be secretive about alchemy (which he inaccurately calls "heretical") and later suggests, on no evidence, that Newton may have dabbled in what White calls "the black arts." A consistent practice of White's is to suggest that something "may" be true, then treat it a few pages later as fact. Regarding Newton's unorthodox religious views (he believed that Jesus Christ was not a divine being, but an intermediate figure between God and humanity), White writes: "Would it be unreasonable to suggest that he wanted to identify himself with Christ?"

White's suggestion that Newton rejected traditional Christian belief in the Trinity because he detested his long-dead father and couldn't accept a religion in which the Father and the Son are of one substance is, to put it kindly, undocumented; but a page later he is presenting it as established fact:

"Although this may seem madness to us, it was of the greatest importance to Newton, for the simple reason that he needed to justify his whole world-view, to reveal the falsehood that was Trinitarianism, because in so doing he could confirm his subconscious belief that he was superhuman."

Six pages later, White does this again: He suggests that while various alchemical symbols could not have offered actual evidence for Newton's theory of gravity, "they may nevertheless have provided signposts along the way to his grand conclusions," and notes a sentence later that these signposts "may have been subconscious." But on the following page White is treating these "subconscious triggers" as established factors, speaking confidently how they "had played their part." For a science writer, White seems astoundingly careless in letting conjecture turn into assertion.

Newton's long involvement in alchemy and in Scriptural fundamentalism (he labored for years to create Biblical chronologies and work out the dates for various prophecies) is well known; and the case for his alchemical speculations providing some inspiration for his theory of gravity has been made before, and more prudently and sagely. Readers interested in Newton's bizarre life and extraordinary achievement should look at Frank Manuel's "A Portrait of Isaac Newton" (which White mentions only in passing) or the Oxford University Press anthology "Let Newton Be!," which offers a range of essays by various Newton authorities. White's own book, alas, is too careless and sensationalistic to be recommended.

This is an excellent account of Newtons life, including not only detailed antecdotes about Newton himself but we also find in this book detailed context. This includes a nice explanation of the state of physics, mathematics and astronomy at the time Newton went to college as well as a very interesting historical account of the development of these fields. The environment and state of affairs at Cambridge at the time is also detailed quite nicely. I think the other reviewers are not being fair, Newtons interest in alchemy lasted a long time and was hardly a "one time thing". I do agree that the passage about Newtons religious views was a bit ridiculous, the claim that Newton may have seen himself as Christ is ridiculous and based on flimsy evidence. But that is only one paragraph in the book and shouldn't deter a potential reader from getting this book. The excellent descriptions of Newtons early years and the historical developments of the sciences alone make this book worth reading. An excellent description on graphs of equations and tangent lines and how these provided problems for scientists and mathematicians at the time is also very interesting, and you can see how Newton used this to invent (or discover) calculus. The history of alchemy is also very interesting, and enlightening--the author shows that the art was not all quackery and many of the instruments of basic chemistry came from it. All in all I would say this book reveals Newton for what he was, a human being with faults and complexities just like everyone else. Highly recommended.

I've read other biographies of Sir Isaac Newton, and this is the best. As the title suggests, there is an emphasis on his interest in Alchemy.

I worried (unnecessarily as it turned out) that other aspects of his life would be neglected. But his time at the Royal Mint, and his clashes with Huygens, Hooke, Leibniz etc are well covered.

The only disappointment for some readers might be that this is not an overtly scientific/mathematical biography - there are no formulae : so if you want to know that little more detail about Newton's discoveries, such as the Laws of Motion, Laws of Gravity, and Differential Calculus, you won't see any of that in here. In fact the word 'Gravity' (perhaps his most famous discovery) doesn't even appear in the Index (although the 'Apple' does).

I start in confessional mode - Newton has long been one of my heroes. Some time ago, I read significant parts of his major works; both Opticks and Principia [or The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy]. The King's School, Grantham, was also my place of secondary education, so I have seen the statue of `Ike' in the centre of Grantham in rain and sunshine. This book takes the statue off its pedestal, but still leaves readers in awe at the colossal figure in history that was Isaac Newton.

There is much more to Newton than the three laws of motion. White fills in some background, and gives interesting details about not only Newton's life, but that of those around him. It leaves a story of a man obsessed - with proving himself, with secrecy, and with power. Not everyone would agree with the broad tenets of the book (e.g. that to understand Newton, you need to understand his alchemical work, or that Newton laid the ground work for the Industrial Revolution), but it give pause for thought. Newton has been much written about, and White gives some fresh insights on what has not, after all, already been done to death. The slant upon `standing upon the shoulders of Giants', being a reference to Robert Hooke's physical deformity, means that this phrase is usually quoted out of context. Newton had a vitriolic turn of phrase!

One of the major themes of Newton's life is his singular fondness of picking quarrels with people; amongst others Robert Hooke, Flamsteed, and Leibnitz. Oh, the extreme politeness of professional animosity, damning with faint praise rather than going for the jugular vein. Was Newton ever wrong? Yes, but White argues that he admitted to making `a silly mistake' rather than being found fundamentally in error. There are good insights into the character of the man, and why he thought that he was right, but perhaps Michael White is too hard on Newton's antagonists, particularly Hooke. Newton says that he does not want to be someone who merely proposes hypotheses; that may have driven him to prove himself. White also declares that Newton viewed life as a riddle to be understood, a code to be cracked, as a duty to the divine. Newton saw there only being one man in any era who could unlock these secrets; himself in his lifetime. As he saw it, the ancients had known things that Newton spent a life-time discovering, or re-discovering.

Beyond his major pieces of work, Isaac Newton posed some very tough questions. He spent significant parts of his last 40 years searching for the Holy Grail of physics, a so called `Unified Theory' (and indeed, whole teams have spent large parts of the 20th Century doing the same). The Queries at the end of the Opticks asks the penetrating "Does not light get bent by `gravity'?" (This was also a question that Einstein implied 200 years later.) Is there a possible pre-cursor of Quantum Mechanics is another Query, or is that just hind-sight? Hind-sight is a wonderful tool; it is never wrong. And that can sum up Newton - never wrong, at least in his own eyes.

No reference whatsoever has been made of Dr Samuel Clarke's correspondence with Leibnitz, where Clarke was speaking for his master. This is a massive omission; in these letters, Leibnitz pointed out that the calculus of Newton worked, but was flawed (because of two compensating errors), which led the German to say of Newton's disciples that they were `men more accustomed to calculate rather than think'. The two clashed over the place of God in the Universe. For Newton, God was a central part of his life, even if his views were rather unorthodox. God was the eternal watchmaker, who wound the watch up and set it going (and thereafter he rested). However, Leibnitz sees God as having a different role in continually sustaining His creation. Without God's active participation, the universe would fall apart.

Alchemy can help to explain Newton's reliance upon the unexplainable triplet of Action at a Distance, Absolute Space and Absolute Time, and it is hard for the modern mind to comprehend the influence of items that verge on occult. White raises questions about Newton's active involvement in more sinister elements, and touches upon possible reasons for the fire that destroyed some of his papers. What does come through is that Newton was both a very able administrator, and a manipulative, almost Machiavellian figure who used his position as President of the Royal Society for his own ends. He left the Royal Society and the Royal Mint in much better shape than when he took the lead of them, but over con trolled.

He came, he saw, he measured, he conquered. but Newton was a very flawed human being. Why is it that some of the finest minds have large amounts personal baggage? THAT is probably why they achieve what they do. Newton had a view that `second inventors count for nothing', although the History of Science is able to provide ample evidence of dual independent discovery (as in Newton and Leibnitz with differential calculus). This partly explains Newton's obsessive and secretive nature, and confrontational approach to some of his fellows. He was a genius and a very difficult man, and these two themes are very evident in the book.

In the end I am left liking Newton less, but admiring him more.

[...]

Although he competently covers the basics of Newton's life and work, Mr. White has two bees in his bonnet that created, in my head at least, a persistent and annoying buzz. The first is that Newton's mathematical and physical insights were somehow vitally linked to, and enhanced by, his dead-end alchemical studies. The second is that he, the author, is qualified to read Sir Isaac's mind at will and report the results as fact.

There is no doubt that Newton could be difficult, but when he said in a letter to the even more difficult Robert Hooke "...If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants...," the reasonable assumption would be that he was paying a straightforward compliment to predecessors such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Descartes. White, however, takes this self-effacing remark as revealing "the truly spiteful, uncompromising and razor-sharp viciousness of his character..." and decides that Newton was mocking Hooke's deformed physique. Considering the whole of the letter and allowing for 17th-century styles, I see no justification for such an extreme interpretive leap. The author does this kind of thing repeatedly. He claims on page 170 that Newton's modest remarks about his reflecting telescope were insincere, but provides no supporting evidence. He states on page 180 that Newton was "Unable to deal with fault-finding in any form, from anyone," but on the next page we find Newton dealing very effectively with criticism from Hooke.

On page 193 White argues that Newton had established an inverse-square "receding" force experienced by a body in orbit, but needed alchemical inspiration to realize that an attractive force also operated. This is odd, because by Newton's third law the two forces were simply matched mirror images, and it seems more plausible that the action/reaction principle would have occurred to him through observation of everyday mechanical and electrostatic or magnetic (action at a distance) events, rather than through speculations on transmutation of the elements. White further claims on page 199 that by 1687 Newton had "...made use of concepts and images derived from his alchemical studies and researches into ancient theology to construct a workable celestial mechanics..." By Occam's razor it seems much more likely that a rational extension of the foundations laid by Galileo and Kepler, plus the confirming power of his calculus applied to astronomical observations, would have accounted for Newton's achievement -- with or without alchemy.

This well-organized book contains much interesting and useful information, which makes me all the more sorry that the author's agendized approach interfered significantly with my ability to enjoy reading it.

I was attracted to this book by a moronic blogger on another site who tried to rationalize the idiocy of "Intelligent Design" by arguing that Isaac Newton believed God created the universe! Another blogger recommended "The Last Sorcerer" as a rebutal to that comment.

Michael White's scholarship is well-researched, incisive and thoughtful. He reveals the history of the awakening of scientific thought and inquiry of the 17th and 18th centuries in a readable and interesting manner.

His descriptions of Newton, Hooke, Waterhouse, Huygens, et al, who opened the doors to the modern scientific method are easy to follow and carefully organized. Sir Isaac, indeed as much a man of God as he was a man of his time, was nonetheless largely responsible for the beginning of the end of superstition and ignorance and the awakening of inquiry and experiment.

This is a good read for anyone interested in where we've been and how we got to where we are.

Most biographies of Newton will have you hating his rivals. This one will place them in their proper perspective. They were intelligent rivals whose antagonism spurred Newton to PROVE his greatness as much as drive him into being a recluse. The phrase "an enemy is an extension of your own shadow" was never more true of Isaac Newton. Although, he is so forgivable considering his charity of gifts.

The bit about the homosexual relation is small, considered a hypothesis, and backed up with facts, even if they are not solid.

But it's a solid read, with good perspective.

I'd prefer Gleick's book, which does the same (no homosexuality though) with style AND some insight into the thoughts leading up to The Calculus and Principia and Optics. Because this books lacks that, I dropped a star.

Worth reading anyhow for the perspective.