Customer Reviews

Isaac Newton and the Transmutation of Alchemy: An Alternative View of the Scientific Revolution

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book provides an important but useful antidote to conventional wisdom about a period which
had a pivotal effect on the later course of Western civilization. A large fraction of the references
are new to me, and sound quite interesting.

In a way, the book takes off on John Maynard Keynes's statement that Newton was "the last alchemist." I have read a number of biographies of Newton, which make him sound like 90% a cardboard character whose entire life could pass a very narrow peer review, and 10% a sheer nasty small lunatic. The book gives many pointers to other aspects of Newton's life
essential to really understanding his perspective. But in the end... it makes me think of a critique by Aleister Crowley of
Karl Marx's view of religion. An antithesis has been badly needed here, but this is not the kind of synthesis which lets us truly appreciate the synthesis.

To set the stage, the first two parts of the book are mainly about John Dee (whom the author clearly adores)
and Francis Bacon (whom he basically trashes as a two-faced hypocrite). Pages 153 to 211 address Newton himself.

Given the many references and details, I can't claim to have digested eveything as yet. But here are my impressions.

Fanning discusses the swirl of four major streams of thought -- modern science (the kind of
social enterprise that Thomas Kuhn talks about), physical alchemy (lots of quicksilver really burning, and really trying to get more gold), ceremonial magic and spiritual alchemy. That's his way of describing it.

He describes John Dee (with support from Queen Elizabeth, who was certainly a pivotal figure) as the hidden main source of
Western culture in all these areas except for mnodern science itself. He suggests that Francis Bacon
was basically a two-faced figure, creating the entire idea of Western science as a kind of lie intended to shelter
his mreal private work as a follower of Dee, in ceremonial magic and physical alchemy. Newton comes
across as a continuation of the Bacon/Dee work, after a major point of transformation where is brought in and
agrees to their policy of a two-faced approach. Newton basically starts up the Royal Society -- the world's first major
true scientific society -- as a cover for physical alchemy and ceremonial magic, and is disappointed that
he cannot steer it to provide more shelter, support and respect for what he truly values. And yet, in the author's view, the Royal Society is basically the realization of an original propoosal by John Dee... which swerved off course in a way
all three of them would deeply regret.

I don't really believe that version, though the argument and many of the sources here are worthy of a lot
more attention.

I especially do not believe the characterization of Francis Bacon, and the lack of appreciation
of the many roots of "spiritual alchemy." The author really does establish Newton's long involvement in
physical alchemy -- and his honest, legitimate attempt to take over everything it has to offer
within the Royal Society and modern science. But I don't see anything like John Dee ceremonial magic
here. I do see some excellent discussion of the "Arian heresy," which in a way is a more precise rendering of themes
that Dan Brown has been talking about lately, in the Da Vinci Code and The Lost Symbol. (Though a popular writer, Brown too has done lots of historical research, with biases different on the surface but not so different deep down as this author.)

I was amused in passing ... when the author is suggesting that everything came from Dee... how casually mentioned
a few minor things showing up from Byzantium and such, and how he finessed the statements Newton himself made (well cited in this book) about the long-standing role of the Pythagoreans and the Stoics and neoPlatonists and such.
Any real knowledge of these schools (or of schools like those described by Corbin, which have interconnected with them)
would show very clearly that it's not all Dee-style alienated and formal ceremonial magic.

In fact, Bacon came from a long-standing growing school of thought in Britain (and elsewhere) ... which may be called "empiricist." At the very least, the Reverend Occam was a key part of it. There was a stream of thought
which opposed the formalistic, hermeneutic approach -- revering old texts and authorities -- and emphasized
learning from experience as the root of ALL knowledge. There is no hypocrisy in proposing an institutoinal
of shared learning from shared experience, in parallel with the same sort of empirical method to enhance and understand
as scientifically as possible the realm of personal experience and growth, even for that part of life which is not suitable for public peer review. (Likewise, there is no hypocrisy in taking out the trash and working for laws to limit CO2 emission at the same time in parallel.) Society does demand some parallel activities, since no one on earth can be an expert
active player in every single area. It is sad that we today know so much more than they did then about the foundations
of learning from experience, both in shared third-party situations and in first-person situations, but are so
much less systematic and conscious about actually applying that knowledge either in science or in everyday life.
(As an example, I think of Smolin's criticism of superstring theory, which is far less empirical than the the work of TYcho Brahe.) I doubt that Newton really mourned the passing of physical alchemy so much as the author suggests,
let alone ceremonial magic; nor that he felt the age of spiritual alchemy was passing away so soon; however,
the author does show us clearly how he rightly mourned the excessive division and lack of understanding which
started to emerge between these two areas of human endeavor.

It is also curious that the author never mentions the links to Freemasonry (not a trivial force in
Western history either). There is a chapter in Mackey's History Freemasonry which dances a bit around
what I would view as the most likely connections, rather similar to what you could actually see around
Trinity College a mere decade or so ago. The book also reminds me of the time when Aleister Crowley in England announced he had unearthed some ancient symbols from a long-defunct brotherhood he would revive... until
a really live trademark suit got him to leave the country.

Before I read this book, I did not realize how the Bacon/Newton ideal of "sapienta" fits with some recent notions
of sapience or sanity -- a state which is not nearly so cold or bloodless or colorless either as third party
science per se or as ceremonial magic, though it is rooted heavily in what we can learn from the former and from direct experience. The contradictions ASSUMED by this author are not there, and are crucial to a real understanding of those who were trying for a different path.

Well, this book wasn't useful for my research, because it is written in non-academic style. But for beginners this book can be very helpful.