arX

iv:1

310.

7494

v2 [

phys

ics.

hist

-ph]

1 A

ug 2

014

Isaac Newton’s sinister heraldry

Alejandro Jenkins∗

Escuela de Fısica, Universidad de Costa Rica, 11501-2060 San Jose, Costa Rica

(Dated: Oct. 2013, last revised Jul. 2014)

After Isaac Newton was knighted by Queen Anne in 1705 he adopted an unusual coat of arms:a pair of human tibiæ crossed on a black background, like a pirate flag without the skull. Aftersome general reflections on Newton’s monumental scientific achievements and on his enigmatic life,we investigate the story of his coat of arms. We also discuss how its simple design illustrates theconcept of chirality, which would later play an important role in the philosophical arguments aboutNewton’s conception of space, as well as in the development of modern chemistry and particlephysics.

Keywords: Isaac Newton, chirality, heraldry

PACS: 01.65.+g, 11.30.Rd

The hearts of old gave hands,

But our new heraldry is hands, not hearts.

— Othello, act 3, scene 4

I. NEWTON, THE MAN

According to Lagrange, the greatest and most fortu-nate of mortals had been Isaac Newton (1642–1727), be-cause it is only possible to discover once the system ofthe world.1 Newtonian mechanics is no longer regardedas the last word on the workings of the Universe, but itseems likely that as long as there continue to be physicsstudents they shall begin by learning Newton’s laws ofmotion.2

Newton’s scientific reputation has long been secure,but the details of his personal and intellectual de-velopment have undergone much posthumous scrutinyand second-guessing, from which no clear portrait hasemerged. According to theoretical physicist MartinGutzwiller, “although many documents concerning New-ton’s life and work have been discussed at great length[...], he remains a lonely and mysterious figure withachievements to his credit that have no equal in the his-tory of science.”3

The iconoclastic mathematician Augustus De Morganand other 19th-century scientists fought the British scien-tific establishment’s hero-worship of Newton by dwellingupon —and sometimes exaggerating— the least attrac-tive aspects of his personality.4 Stephen Hawking’s vividdiatribe on Newton’s “deviousness and vitriol,” in hisbestselling Brief History of Time,5 belongs to that tradi-tion. Even such a great admirer of Newton’s creative ge-nius as the Soviet mathematician Vladimir Arnold couldnot discuss Newton’s career without some disparagingcommentary on his character and beliefs.6

Historian Richard S. Westfall, who dedicated morethan twenty years to his authoritative biography ofNewton,7 later expressed a personal loathing for hissubject.8 To be sure, the picture of Newton that canbe gleaned today from the conflicting accounts of those

who knew him and from his multifarious personal pa-pers is neither transparently coherent nor conventionallyseductive.9 Computer scientist Ernest Davis has charac-terized Newton as “a genius” and also “a very strangeman, with a very different viewpoint, who lived in a verydifferent world, and who died almost 300 years ago.”10

Newton was high-strung, wary and secretive in hisdealings with others, and intolerant of criticism, butthere are few instances in which he can be convictedof bad faith. Intellectual rivalries, contests, intrigues,and priority disputes were particularly frequent and ac-rimonious at a time when scientific publication was inits infancy and savants still depended on aristocraticpatronage.11 In his notorious and unedifying disputeswith Hooke,12 Flamsteed,13 and Leibniz,14 Newton didhave legitimate grievances. Those controversies gener-ated more heat than others of the period primarily be-cause of the greater significance of the scientific workinvolved.15

In his lifetime, Newton’s “natural philosophy” with-stood many attacks, most of them misguided and someof them malicious.16 In the fraught intellectual climate ofthe period, those controversies threatened to spill into re-ligious and political disputes that could have cost Newtonhis livelihood and reputation.17 Newton’s guardedness inpublishing and explaining his discoveries, as well as hisprickly defense of his honor when faced with criticism, donot seem quite so peculiar or paranoid in their historicalcontext. Had he not enjoyed Restoration England’s rela-tive freedom of thought and, from an early age, the secu-rity of his Cambridge professorship, it is hard to see howhis revolutionary work could have been accomplished.

In evaluating Newton’s character, one should also bearin mind that during the last thirty years of his life heserved as chief officer of the Royal Mint, earning nearlyunanimous praise for his diligence and honesty. Accord-ing to Mint official and historian Sir John Craig, Newtonwas not only personally conscientious but also “a goodjudge and handler of men,” endowed with “magnetismwhich in many engendered an extraordinary regard andrespect.”18 In the estimation of the eminent economist

2

Lord Keynes, Newton was “one of the greatest and mostefficient of our civil servants.”19 Newton’s efforts to im-prove the coinage contributed significantly to the nation’sfinances.20 After his appointment to the Mint had madehim a wealthy man, he became known to his extendedfamily and to others for his charitable giving.21

II. OCCULT STUDIES

Keynes had acquired many of Newton’s privatemanuscripts.22 He was therefore aware of the great sci-entist’s interests in both alchemy and theology, leadinghim to declare in 1946 that Newton had not been “thefirst of the age of reason” but rather “the last of themagicians.”19 Scholars have since debated whether New-ton’s alchemical and religious pursuits are properly char-acterized as “magical” and how they relate to his workin physics and mathematics.

The mature Newton showed no interest in astrology,23

communication with spirits, ritual magic, or other of thecommon occult pursuits of the day.24 The editor of New-ton’s mathematical papers, D. T. Whiteside, could find“no hint of any belief by him in number-mysticism,”25

while recent scholarship has documented Newton’s hos-tility to neo-Platonism, Gnosticism, Kabbalism and otheresoteric traditions influential in the Renaissance.26

Newton’s private writings do evince a keen involvementwith alchemy and its arcane imagery, but at the timethere was no clear boundary between alchemy as mysti-cism and alchemy as early modern chemistry. Moreover,the otherworldliness of alchemy as practiced in New-ton’s day may have been exaggerated by 19th-centuryoccultists and those influenced by their interpretations.27

Newton’s alchemical interests, which he shared with em-inent contemporaries such as Robert Boyle and JohnLocke, undoubtedly influenced his atomism.28 On theother hand, the notion that alchemy contributed to hisconception of gravity as an action at a distance may be,according to the most recent scholarship, “something ofa canard.”29

Leibniz, who rejected the Newtonian theory of gravity,originated the claim that Newton conceived of gravityas an “occult quality,” an aspersion that Newton stren-uously denied.30 Explaining that he did not “feign hy-potheses” about the mechanism by which gravity actedacross empty space, Newton presented his theory asa mathematical description of gravity’s observable ef-fects, an attitude wholly compatible with modern sci-entific principles.31 According to a tradition collected byVoltaire, when the elderly Newton was asked how he haddiscovered his celebrated law of universal gravitation, hereplied: “by thinking on it continually.”32

FIG. 1: Coat of arms of Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727)

III. RELIGION

Newton was a devout but unorthodox Christian whoprivately rejected the doctrines of the Holy Trinity33

and the immortality of the soul as unscriptural andidolatrous.34 He dedicated a considerable effort to es-tablishing a chronology of human civilization, combininghis belief in the wisdom of the ancients and in the his-toricity of the Bible with innovative uses of astronomyand other quantitative techniques.35 A failure from thestandpoint of our current understanding of history, thatwork does shed light on Newton’s attitudes towards thevarious branches of learning.

Philosopher Richard Popkin tried to make theology thekey to Newton’s intellectual development, provocativelyasking why “one of the greatest anti-Trinitarian theolo-gians of the 17th century” took “time off to write workson natural science, like the Principia Mathematica?”36

But the fact that, in due course, Newton’s mathematicsand physics were decisively embraced by an internationalcommunity of scholars, the vast majority of whom wereeither ignorant of his religious convictions or actively hos-tile to them, suggests that Newton’s theology can con-tribute little to elucidating the content of his science.37

Even Newton’s belief that divine intervention is needed tokeep the planets on their regular orbits —as theologicallycharged a claim about nature as he ever published38—was based on the mathematical laws of gravity that hehad abstracted from astronomical observations, and theproblem that he thereby raised, the dynamical stabilityof the solar system, has continued to occupy physicistsand mathematicians to this day.39

In my view, if there is something to learn today fromNewton’s religion, and more broadly from his life beyondhis immortal work in the exact sciences, it is a lessonclose to Max Weber’s “elective affinities” between theworldview associated with certain historical strands ofProtestant Christianity, and the scientific and industrialrevolutions.40 According to historian Stephen Snobelen,“in his biblicism, piety and morality, Newton was a pu-ritan through and through.”34 The central paradox ofNewton’s life is close to what Weber underlined in hisanalysis of the growth of capitalism: that the Puritans,whose convictions seem so remote from our perspective,

3

FIG. 2: Stone tablet above the front door of WoolsthorpeManor, near Colsterworth, in Lincolnshire. The inscriptionreads “In this Manor House Sir Isaac Newton, Knt. was born,25th December, A.D. 1642.” The picture is by Flickr userWalwyn,56 and is used here under the terms of the CreativeCommons 2.0 license.

contributed decisively to creating the modern world.41 Inthe context of the radical English Puritanism of the 17thcentury —of the religion of Oliver Cromwell, John Mil-ton, and the Pilgrim Fathers— the man Isaac Newtongains some intelligibility.42

Puritanism and its legacy have long been contentiousin English-language historiography, as reflected, for in-stance, in the widely diverging evaluations of OliverCromwell’s rule.43 Newton’s own (doctrinally heterodox)Puritanism may account, in part, for the antipathy ofsome of his biographers. Historian Frank Manuel sawthe prosecution of counterfeiters during Newton’s tenureat the Mint as an opportunity for the great man to “hurtand kill without doing violence to his scrupulous puri-tan conscience,” adding that “the blood of the coinersand clippers nourished him.”44 Rupert Hall dismissedthis “sadistic vampire” portrait as “blood-tub Victorianmelodrama rather than biography.”45

IV. KNIGHTHOOD AND GENEALOGY

On 16 April 1705, in a ceremony conducted at TrinityCollege, Cambridge, Queen Anne elevated Isaac Newtonto the rank of knight bachelor.46 At the time, that honorwas usually granted to military officers and senior fig-ures in the national and local governments, as well as torich merchants and others with political connections.47

Newton’s knighthood was probably a royal favor to hispolitical patron, Lord Halifax. Halifax, a prominent fig-ure in the Whig political party, hoped thereby to promoteNewton’s candidacy in the upcoming parliamentary elec-

tion, but Newton came last at the polls and never againsought elective office.48

The lawyer James Montagu (Lord Halifax’s brotherand a future Attorney General) and the academic JohnEllis (master of Gonville and Caius College and vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge) were knightedalong with Newton. More than a few “new men” of ob-scure ancestry, like Ellis, figure among the knights bach-elor created by Queen Anne.47 For his part, Sir Isaacsoon sought to establish his status as a gentleman.49 InNovember he submitted to the College of Heralds an af-fidavit detailing his ancestry and claiming Sir John New-ton, Bart.,50 a rich landowner from Culverthorpe, in Lin-colnshire, as a third cousin. This was supported by adeclaration signed by Sir John.51

That genealogy might seem suspicious, since IsaacNewton’s father had been a relatively prosperous but il-literate yeoman farmer.52 It was not uncommon, in thatday and age, for a wealthy man to pay an accommodat-ing officer for the right to bear a coat of arms, or to someother hereditary privilege, based on a fictional pedigree.In fact, the second Sir John Newton, Bart. (father of thecousin who supported Isaac Newton’s affidavit) had in-herited his baronetcy from a Sir John Newton to whom hewas unrelated. The first Sir John, a native of Gloucester-shire, was childless. He agreed to pass on his baronetcyto his rich namesake and putative cousin, resident in Lin-colnshire, in exchange for help settling his financial obli-gations. But archival research has established that thegenealogy in Isaac Newton’s 1705 affidavit is genuine andthat he prepared it from the available records with hishabitual scrupulousness.51,53

According to accounts collected by Sir David Brewster,later in his life Newton claimed in private conversationthat his male-line ancestry might have been Scottish.54

Yet it seems quite unlikely that Newton could have seri-ously entertained that idea, which contradicts the well-documented genealogy that he had submitted to the Col-lege of Heralds. Moreover, it is clear from their mutualcorrespondence that Isaac Newton consistently regardedSir John Newton as head of their common clan. SirJohn’s heir, the rich and politically connected Sir MichaelNewton, would serve as chief mourner at Isaac Newton’sfuneral in 1727.55

V. BLAZONRY

Isaac Newton’s personal coat of arms is shown inFig. 1. This escutcheon is carved on a stone tabletabove the front door of Woolsthorpe Manor, the homein Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, near Grantham, Lin-colnshire, where Newton was born and where he madesome of his greatest intellectual breakthroughs after re-turning there when the University of Cambridge wasclosed due to the Great Plague of 1665–66. That tablet,shown in Fig. 2, was installed in 1798 by EdmundTurnor, whose father had purchased Woolsthorpe Manor

4

FIG. 3: Escutcheon of Sir Michael Newton (ca. 1695–1743),4th baronet of Barrs Court in the County of Gloucester (ac-tually resident in Culverthorpe, Lincolnshire), Knight of theBath, Member of Parliament, as well as Sir Isaac Newton’skinsman and chief mourner. The crossbones are quarteredwith another design, blazoned as “argent, on a chevron azurethree garbs or,” taken from the Gloucestershire family (origi-nally surnamed Cradock) of Sir John Newton, 1st baronet.58

in 1733.57

In the language of heraldry, Fig. 1 is described (“bla-zoned”) as “sable, two shinbones in saltire, the dextersurmounted of the sinister argent.” This requires someexplanation for the uninitiated: “Sable” means black andrefers to the background color. A “saltire” is an X-shapedcross. “Argent” means white and identifies to the colorof the bones. The “sinister” bone (which runs from theupper right to the lower left) surmounts the “dexter”(running from the upper left to the lower right).

The last detail is interesting. The reader may careto verify that the crossbones of Fig. 1 are arranged likethe blades of a pair of left-handed scissors. Even withsymmetrical handles, ordinary (i.e., right-handed) scis-sors cannot be turned so that they will be congruentwith Fig. 1: they will always look like the crossbonesin Fig. 3. The design of Fig. 1 is therefore unequivocallyleft-handed, or, to use the Latin term, sinister.

The blazon to which Isaac Newton was entitled byvirtue of the genealogy in the 1705 affidavit did not spec-ify which bone should lie on top.51 The arms of the New-ton baronets show the dexter bone surmounting the sin-ister (see Fig. 3).58 On the other hand, Samuel Newton(1628–1718), mayor of Cambridge, who was unrelated toSir Isaac but with whom Sir Isaac must have become ac-quainted during his years at the University, displayed hisown coat of arms with the sinister bone surmounting thedexter.59

The coat of arms of Isaac Barrow, Newton’s mentorand predecessor as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics,also features a sinister saltire, in his case formed by twocrossed swords. An ornate carving of it, by the eminentartist Grinling Gibbons, graces the end of a bookshelf inTrinity College’s Wren Library, built while Barrow wasmaster and Newton a fellow of that college.60

VI. SYMBOLISM

Like other aspects of his life, Newton’s heraldry resistseasy interpretation. Newton did not create the crossbonedevice, which is ancestral. On the other hand, one mightattribute some meaning to his adoption of such a starkdesign (which only a couple of decades later would be-come indelibly associated with the Jolly Roger by thepseudonymous Captain Charles Johnson’s General His-

tory of Pyrates61), rather than seeking a new grant ofarms from the College of Heralds (which he might wellhave obtained, given his eminence).Newton’s efforts to uncover factual accounts of history

and natural science concealed in ancient sources, suchas the Bible, Greek myths, or the Corpus Hermeticum,were surely related to the “emblematic worldview” ofother Renaissance intellectuals who sought wisdom bydeciphering and correlating the symbolisms that they be-lieved lay hidden in all things. But, as Matt Goldish hasunderlined, “Newton’s relationship to symbols was notmystical, like that of the Rosicrucians or other Hermetics,but rather mathematical: he regarded them as a puzzlefor which available clues provide a logical solution.”62

In his study of ancient sources, Newton always soughtprecise, rational meanings that he thought had been ob-fuscated after the corruption of mankind’s first religion.63

The alchemical literature of his day, with its deliber-ate encoding of chemical recipes in riddling allegories,64

must have encouraged that approach. Scholars who havetaken seriously the characterization of Newton as “lastof the magicians” have tended to downplay this disen-

chanting tendency, as well as his consistent rejection ofmetaphysical speculation divorced from rigorous experi-mental knowledge.65

With this in mind, three non-exclusive possibilities forNewton’s interpretation of his own escutcheon appearplausible: as a conventional mark of his social rank andfamily connections, as a stark memento mori like theskulls and hourglasses of Puritan gravestones,66 or asa mathematical symbol connected to what would muchlater be called chirality. Though wholly conjectural, thelast possibility is intriguing in light of other intellectualdevelopments.

VII. CHIRALITY

An object is said to be chiral if it cannot be super-imposed on its mirror image. The term, coined by LordKelvin in 1893,67 is taken from the Greek word for hand(χειρ), the human hands being familiar instances of chi-ral objects: the left and right hands are mirror images ofeach other, and a left-hand glove will not fit over a righthand, or vice-versa. Some 19th-century mathematicalscientists, including Clerk Maxwell and Willard Gibbs,referred to the geometrical transformation that replacesa figure with its mirror image as a “perversion,”68 a usagethat is now largely obsolete but persists in some scientific

5

contexts.69

Awareness of the incongruence of mirror imagesis much older. Modern chemists often credit ReneDescartes (1596–1650) with this insight, based on the re-mark attributed to him that “any man who, upon lookingdown at his bare feet, does not laugh, has either no senseof symmetry or no sense of humor.”70 I have been unableto find this quote in Descartes’s published works or cor-respondence, but Descartes did have a sophisticated un-derstanding of what would later be termed chirality, forhe famously explained magnetism as a flow of tiny par-ticles shaped as left-handed or right-handed corkscrews,whose mutual action could therefore produce either at-traction of repulsion.71 Newton rejected such ad hoc, un-verifiable hypotheses as “fictions.”72 But when it came tothe double refraction (now called birefringence) exhibitedby crystals of Iceland spar, Newton proposed an interpre-tation in terms of the “sides” of light.73,74 (These “sides,”akin to the linear polarizations of modern physical optics,are not chiral.)Did Descartes’s interest in the incongruence of mirror

images influence Newton? Though I have found no di-rect evidence of this, the possibility is not far-fetched.Newton was both Descartes’s greatest disciple and hisgreatest critic. In the words of mathematician and sci-ence historian Clifford Truesdell, “if the steely-splendidpreface to the Principia is not just a bolt from the blue(and where in science as such bolts to be found?), whoelse than Descartes can be its grandsire?”75

A. Rightful delineation

The young Newton first came to the attention of the“Republic of Letters” as creator of the first practicalreflecting telescope.76 An issue that might have caughtNewton’s attention is how a telescope can alter an im-age’s orientation. Galileo’s old refracting telescope leavesorientation unchanged, but Kepler’s improved refractorrotates it by 180◦. The image can be made upright byreflection (a desirable feature when observing objects onland), at the cost of reversing left and right. Newton’stelescope used a pair of mirrors, one curved, the otherflat. Each mirror reverses chirality, but the net effect isthat the image is rotated while chirality is preserved.In his later years, Newton had further occasion to con-

sider the incongruence of mirror images when he soughtto estimate the date of the expedition of the Argonautsfrom what he took to be a contemporaneous descriptionof the positions of the equinoxes and solstices with re-spect to the constellations. In the course of that work,Newton had to correct for inconsistencies in the chirali-ties of constellations as drawn in stellar atlases. He re-ferred to the corrected stellar maps as being “rightly de-lineated,” confusing some of his critics.77 The reason forthose inconsistencies is that constellations may be de-picted as they are actually seen from the Earth or asthey would appear on the surface of a celestial globe

FIG. 4: Idealized shapes of the crystals of the two chi-ral forms of sodium ammonium tartrate, which Pasteur ob-served in 1848. One of the minor facets has been coloredto make the chirality more obvious. Image from Wikime-dia Commons, available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pcrystals.svg

(i.e., from an imaginary vantage point outside the ce-lestial sphere).78

B. Philosophy

In 1768, Immanuel Kant considered chirality (whichhe called the problem of “incongruent counterparts”) inthe context of the philosophical debate on whether theconcept of space is reducible to the relations between con-crete objects.79 This was a question that dated back tothe disputes between Newton and Leibniz.80 Kant arguedthat the spatial relations between the fingers of a givenhand are the same whether it be a left or a right handand that the fact that the two hands are distinguishablemust therefore be explained by appeal to an external ge-ometrical space in which the hands exist. According toKant, this supported Newton’s belief in the existence ofan absolute space, which Leibniz had denied.81

Chirality figures also in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tracta-tus Logico-Philosophicus of 1921. Wittgenstein pointedout that a right-hand glove could be worn over a left handif the three-dimensional glove could be turned aroundin a fourth spatial dimension.82 (An equivalent observa-tion had been made by mathematician August Mobiusin 1827.83) Wittgenstein’s comment is characteristicallygnomic, but he seems to have concluded from this thatchirality is tied to the space in which the object is embed-ded (and therefore to the ways in which it is allowed tomove) rather than being a property of the object itself.84

C. Chemistry

The young Louis Pasteur, who had just completed hisdoctorate in chemistry and physics, was faced with apuzzle. He knew that (+)-tartaric acid, extracted fromfermented grape juice, is optically active (meaning thatit rotates the plane of the polarization of light pass-ing through it). Factory-made “paratartaric acid” (nowcalled racemic tartaric acid) has the same elemental com-position as (+)-tartaric acid, yet crystallizes differently

6

FIG. 5: Engraving by William Stukeley, dated 1722, of the Church of St. John the Baptist, Colsterworth, where Isaac Newtonwas baptized. The monument on the right is an imaginary decoration. Image from Wikimedia Commons, available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colsterworth_Church,_Lincolnshire_by_W._Stukeley_(1722).png

and is optically inactive. In 1848, Pasteur discovered thatthe artificially synthesized acid could make two distinctcrystals, shown in Fig. 4, which are mirror images of eachother. By carefully picking out crystals of one form anddissolving them, he produced a substance identical to thenatural (+)-tartaric acid.85

Pasteur’s work established that racemic tartaric acidis a mixture of two substances whose molecules are mir-ror images of each other (“enantiomers”), and that onlyone of the two forms occurs in nature. A decade after-wards, his experiments on tartrate fermentation led Pas-teur to conclude that chirality is an essential factor inmolecular recognition within biological systems.86 Pas-teur’s brilliant elucidation of molecular chirality wouldplay a key role in the growth of biochemistry. Writinga century later, the great crystallographer and molecularbiologist J. D. Bernal described it as Pasteur’s “first andin some ways his greatest scientific discovery.”87

Pasteur saw deep significance in the homochirality ofbiomolecules, writing that “life as manifested to us is aconsequence of the dissymmetry of the Universe.”88 Whylife on Earth evolved to use only one enantiomer of suchorganic substances as amino acids and sugars remainsmysterious.89

D. Particle physics

In 1956, theoretical physicists T. D. Lee andC. N. Yang proposed that the weak nuclear interaction,unlike the other forces of nature, could distinguish be-tween mirror images. Soon afterwards, C. S. Wu con-firmed this experimentally when she found that in ra-dioactive decays of cobalt-60 nuclei the electron producedis more likely to be emitted in a direction opposite to thenucleus’s intrinsic angular momentum (“spin”), makingthe decay process left-handed.90

A measurement of the spin of a massless particle alongthe direction of its linear momentum has only two possi-ble outcomes, which are mirror images of each other andare therefore called chiralities. For the photon (the mass-less particle of light), these correspond to its two circularpolarizations.91 Elementary particles that do have mass(such as the electron) are now regarded as mixtures ofthe two chiralities.92

The weak interaction acts exclusively on the left-handed component of particles and on the right-handedcomponent of antiparticles. The Standard Model (SM)of high energy physics is therefore formulated in termsof chiral quantum fields.93 In 1964, Cronin and Fitch re-ported experimental evidence that there is also a slightasymmetry between the interactions of left-handed par-ticles and right-handed antiparticles. In 1973, Kobayashiand Maskawa showed how this effect, known as “charge-parity” (CP) violation, was possible within the theoreti-cal context of the SM. The amount of CP violation in theSM is, however, far too small to explain why the Universecontains as much matter as it does, but no antimatter.How CP violation in the early Universe can have beenlarge enough to account for the matter content that wesee today is one of the great unsolved problems of bothcosmology and particle physics.94

VIII. THE ARMIGEROUS NEWTON

Like other wealthy armigers of the period, Sir Isaac hadhis coat of arms painted on the doors of his carriage. AFrench commentator mistook it for a “death’s head” andinterpreted it as evidence that Newton —whose Chris-tian convictions were problematic for the free-thinkingphilosophes who embraced his science— had “entirelytaken to religion” in his old age.95 (Laplace and otherswould later pursue the idea that Newton’s religiosity was

7

FIG. 6: Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton by the studio of Enoch Seeman, painted circa 1726. Note the small heraldic decorationon the side of the table. Copyright of the National Portrait Gallery, London, used here with permission.

a symptom of senility or derangement, perhaps subse-quent to his nervous breakdown of 1693.96)

Members of other English families surnamed New-ton also bore crossbones on their coats of arms.97

That heraldic device appears to be medieval and mighthave been intended originally as a symbol of warlikeprowess. Several armigerous Newtons (including theNewton baronets) displayed, as a crest above the shieldwith the crossbones, the image of an “eastern prince” (orin some cases a “naked man”) kneeling on his left kneeand surrendering his sword.97 According to a family tra-dition, Sir Ancel Gorney, an ancestor of the Newtons,fought along King Richard I in the Third Crusade andcaptured a Muslim prince at Ascalon.58

In 1722, William Stukeley, a personal friend of SirIsaac and a noted antiquarian, engraved a drawing of thechurch where Newton was baptized (see Fig. 5), and laterincluded it in his manuscript biography of Newton.98

That illustration incorporates, as a sort of caption, animaginary monument with a heraldic decoration and aLatin inscription. The kneeling figure in the crest sug-gests that Stukeley based his decoration on the heraldryof the Newton baronets.99

The coat of arms appears as well on the portrait shownin Fig. 6, made in the final years of Newton’s life. Theuse of the heraldic device suggests that this particularpainting —closely patterned after an earlier one by EnochSeeman— was made for the Newton family.100 Note thatit depicts the dexter chirality for the crossbones, contraryto what is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The dexter chirality isalso used in the arms carved by John Woodward in 1755–

56 above the stalls in the chapel of Trinity College.101

IX. BEND SINISTER

The fictional protagonist of Neal Stephenson’s 2003novel Quicksilver visits Newton at Woolsthorpe Manorduring the Great Plague and anachronistically notes thecrossbones of Fig. 2, a device whose “awfulness” embar-rasses him as an Englishman.102 In fact, despite livingin an age when heraldry was highly prized as a mark ofidentity and status, Newton left a tenuous heraldic trail.I have been unable to confirm that he personally chose,or even used, the sinister chirality illustrated in Fig. 1.103

As detailed above, the relevant documents from the Col-lege of Heralds specify no chirality, while surviving in-stances in which a coat of arms is associated with IsaacNewton generally show the dexter chirality of the New-ton baronets, with the significant exception of the tabletpictured in Fig. 2. The sinister chirality was associatedwith the Newtons of Cambridge, whom Isaac Newtonmust have known but to whom he was unrelated.

The genteel Turnor family of Stoke Rochford assidu-ously cultivated the memory of their illustrious country-man. Figure 7 shows their copy of the bust of New-ton by sculptor Louis Francois Roubillac, whose originalresides in the Trinity College library. Antiquarian Ed-mund Turnor (1754–1829),104 grandson of the man of thesame name who purchased Woolsthorpe Manor in 1733,recorded only the dexter chirality as connected with SirIsaac’s family.105 But his father (another Edmund) may

8

FIG. 7: Isaac Newton, from a copy of a bust by Roubil-lac owned by the Turnor family. The picture is taken fromRef. 51 and is used here with permission of the Society forLincolnshire History and Archaeology.

have had reason to install such a permanent and con-spicuous depiction of the sinister chirality at the mostsignificant of all locales associated with Newton’s life.106

In heraldry, a diagonal band running from the up-per left-hand to the lower right-hand corner is called a“bend.” The mirror image, with the band running fromthe upper right-hand to the lower left-hand corner, isidentified as a “bend sinister.” The reason for this termi-nology is that if the coat of arms were drawn on the frontof a battle shield, the top of the bend sinister would benear the knight’s left shoulder. Was Newton aware thatin the English heraldry of his day a bend sinister oftenmarked the arms of a bastard child?107

X. LAST WONDERCHILD

Newton’s father had died three months before hisbirth. When his mother remarried, the three-year-oldNewton was left in the care of his maternal grandpar-ents. Treated almost as an orphan, Newton had a lonelyand unhappy childhood, in which some biographers haveseen a source of his adult neuroses. In Keynes’s view,“Isaac Newton, a posthumous [son] born with no fa-ther on Christmas Day,108 1642, was the last wonder-child to whom the Magi could do sincere and appropriatehomage.”19

It is easy to miss Newton’s personal dimensions or tomistake them altogether. Like everyone else, he had agenealogy, both familial and intellectual. He was a crea-ture of his own time and place, his work a part of whatEinstein called “the doubtful striving and suffering of hisgeneration.”109 Yet he was also a prime mover in whatmay be the grandest cultural shift in history. He left nobiological descendants, but he is an ancestor to modernhumankind. Neither the standards of his day nor thoseof ours are quite apt for giving his full measure. And nei-ther the hero-worship of his first biographers nor the var-ious revisionisms of subsequent scholars have produced acompelling picture of how such a man was possible.110

On his deathbed, Newton refused the last rites of theChurch of England. He died on the morning of 20 March1727. A week later his body lay in state in the JerusalemChamber at London’s Westminster Abbey. On 4 Aprilthe Lord Chancellor and five other noblemen carried theremains to their resting place beneath the Abbey’s nave,under a gravestone marked Hic depositum est quod mor-

tale fuit Isaaci Newtoni (“here lies what was mortal ofIsaac Newton”).

Acknowledgments

I thank Neer Asherie and Joseph Gal for correspon-dence on Pasteur’s work, for bringing Ref. 86 to my atten-tion, and for suggestions on improving this manuscript.Jed Buchwald and Mordechai Feingold pointed outRefs. 95 and 100. Daniel Garber and Kurt Smith assistedthe search for the source of the quotation attributed toDescartes in Ref. 70. Rob Iliffe kindly provided advancecopy of the relevant chapters in Ref. 114. Andrew Grayand Bernard Juby gave expert heraldic advice (Ref. 103).I also thank Jose Cayasso for producing Figs. 1 and 3,Tom Hayes for help procuring titles from the Harvard li-braries, Jordy Geerlings for correspondence on Hatzfeld’santi-Newtonianism (Ref. 17), Don Campbell for discus-sions about heraldic marks of bastardy (Ref. 107), aswell as Ari Belenkiy and Vanessa Lopez for general feed-back. Finally, thanks are due to the National PortraitGallery’s Rights and Images Department for permissionto use Fig. 6, and to Ken Redmore of the Society for Lin-colnshire History and Archaeology for permission to useFig. 7.

∗ Electronic address: ajenkins@fisica.ucr.ac.cr1 J.-B. J. Delambre, “Notice sur la vie et les ouvrages deM. le comte J.-L. Lagrange,” in Œuvres de Lagrange, vol.I, (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1867), p. xx.

2 S. Weinberg, “The Revolution That Didn’t Happen,” N.Y. Rev. Books 45(15), 48–52 (1998).

3 M. C. Gutzwiller, “Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 70(2), 589–639 (1998).

4 R. Higgitt, Recreating Newton, (London: Pickering &Chatto, 2007).

5 S. W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, (New York:Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 181–182.

6 V. I. Arnol’d, Huygens and Barrow, Newton and Hooke,(Basel: Birkhauser, 1990).

7 R. S. Westfall, Never at Rest, (Cambridge: CambridgeU. P., 1980). This remains the foremost scholarly effort to

9

document and interpret Newton’s career, but at severalpoints it betrays an imperfect grasp of Newton’s aims,methods, and results. Compare, e.g., Westfall’s dismissivetreatment of Newton’s lunar theory (pp. 540–548) withRefs. 3,111,112.

8 R. Iliffe, Newton: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford:Oxford U. P.), p. 7.

9 There is now a vast secondary literature on Newton, muchof it by the “Newton industry” that developed in the1960s after scholars began in earnest to explore his privatemanuscripts. This literature is riven by disagreements onNewton’s personality and motives, on the significance ofhis interests in alchemy and religion, and on their relationto his achievements in the exact sciences. Even the techni-cal interpretation of some aspects of Newton’s publishedwork in mathematics and physics has proved controver-sial. See R. S. Westfall, “The Changing World of the New-tonian Industry,” J. Hist. Ideas 37(1), 175–184 (1976);“Technical Newton,” Isis 87(4), 701–706 (1996); M. Maz-zotti, “The Two Newtons and Beyond,” Brit. J. Hist. Sci.40(1), 105–111 (2007); M. Feingold, “Honor Thy New-ton,” Early Sci. Med. 12(2), 223–229 (2007).

10 E. Davis, “How Did Newton Go So Far Off Course?”SIAM News 46(4), (2013), http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=2068

11 Johann Bernoulli, who as a Leibnizian partisan did muchto sow discord with the Newtonians, later resorted to afalse pretense in a priority dispute against his own sonDaniel. See C. Truesdell, “The hydrodynamics of Danieland John Bernoulli (1727–1740),” in Leonhardi Euleri

Opera Omnia, ser. 2, vol. 12, (Lausanne: Orell FussliTurici, 1954), pp. xxiii–xxxviii; “Experience, Theory, andExperiment,” in An Idiot’s Fugitive Essays on Science,(New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984 [1955]), pp. 3–20. Ac-cording to Truesdell, the elder Bernoulli lived in “a worldof challenges, enmities, secret methods, and anagrams”(p. 11). This was Newton’s world also, but Newton de-tested it and for much of his life would rather have al-lowed his discoveries to pass unnoticed than engage inthe baroque polemics needed to defend them.

12 After Newton published his groundbreaking work on colorin 1672, Hooke’s hasty and dismissive response opened afrustrating controversy that helped drive Newton awayfrom physics and from publication for over a decade (seeRef. 7, ch. 7). The animosity between Hooke and New-ton was later aggravated by Hooke’s outspoken insistencethat Newton’s Principia failed to credit him with theoriginal insight that the elliptical orbits of planets maybe explained by an inverse-square law for gravity. Hookelacked the knowledge of calculus necessary to establishthis rigorously, but his 1679 correspondence with New-ton may have helped to turn Newton’s attention back to-wards the subject and to clarify Newton’s thinking onorbits, by then already quite advanced. See M. Nauen-berg, “Robert Hooke’s Seminal Contribution to OrbitalDynamics,” Phys. Perspect. 7(1), 4–34 (2005).

13 For a sympathetic summary of Newton’s positionwith regard to Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal,see M. P. Silverman, review of D. H. Clark’s andS. P. H. Clark’s Newton’s Tyranny, Am. J. Phys.71(5), 507–508 (2003). The notion that the mature New-ton exercised tyrannical control of the British scientificestablishment is undermined by Flamsteed’s ultimate suc-cess in keeping Halley and Newton from dictating the

terms for the publishing of his observations. Even withinthe Royal Society that he presided, Newton never enjoyedunanimous support, even though his international repu-tation far exceeded any other member’s (see Ref. 7, pp.696–697).

14 For a full account of the feud between Newton and Leibnizover the history of calculus, see A. R. Hall, Philosophersat War, (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1980). Accord-ing to Hall, “Leibniz was by no means a modest man.He was really different from Newton in this respect” (p.48). See also D. Bertoloni Meli, Equivalence and Priority:

Newton versus Leibniz, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993);N. Guicciardini, “Against Leibniz,” in Isaac Newton on

Mathematical Certainty and Method, (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2009), pp. 329–384.

15 Even the amiable Christiaan Huygens, second only toNewton among the mathematical scientists of the period,was embroiled in “perpetual controversy” with membersof the Royal Society, including Hooke. See M. Feingold,“Huygens and the Royal Society,” De zeventiende eeuw

12(1), 22–36 (1996).16 The French campaigns against Newton’s physics are sum-

marized in M. Feingold, “The War on Newton,” Isis101(1), 175–186 (2010).

17 For an extreme instance of anti-Newtonianism seeJ. C. F. de Hatzfeld, The Case of the Learned, (Lon-don: T. Churchill, 1724), a screed published during New-ton’s lifetime and dedicated to King George I, whichaccuses Newton of “vulgar errors” and of overturning“both natural and revealed religion.” It is based on aconfused reading of earlier Leibnizian critiques, includ-ing the conviction that a “Dr. Orfireus” had overturnedNewtonian mechanics by finding the secret of perpet-ual motion.113 Hatzfeld’s polemical career is discussed inJ. Geerlings, “Anti-Newtonianism and Radical Enlight-enment,” in Newton and the Netherlands, eds. E. Jorinkand A. Maas, (Amsterdam: Amsterdam U. P. and LeidenU. P., 2012), pp. 207–226. The broader history of anti-Newtonianism up to the mid 18th century is surveyed inJ. I. Israel, Enlightenment Contested, (Oxford: OxfordU. P., 2006), ch. 8, but the treatment of some of the rel-evant scientific questions is not altogether satisfactory.

18 J. H. M. Craig, Newton at the Mint, (Cambridge: Cam-bridge U. P., 1946), p. 119.

19 J. M. Keynes, “Newton, the Man,” in Essays in Biogra-

phy, ed. G. Keynes, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,1963 [1947]), pp. 310–323.

20 A. Belenkiy, “The Master of the Royal Mint: how muchmoney did Isaac Newton save Britain?” J. R. Statist. Soc.A 176(2), 481–498 (2013).

21 Ref. 7 pp. 854–861.22 On the fate of Newton’s Nachlass, including Keynes’s ef-

forts to collect and preserve the alchemical material, seeS. Dry, The Newton Papers, (New York and Oxford: Ox-ford U. P., 2014).

23 T. G. Cowling, Isaac Newton and Astrology, (Leeds:Leeds U. P., 1977).

24 Newton rejected the reality of ghosts and demons, charac-terizing “enchanters, magicians, sorcerers, necromancers,and witches” as “deceivers and cheats.” See S. D. Snobe-len, “Lust, Pride, and Ambition: Isaac Newton and theDevil,” in Newton and Newtonianism, eds. J. E. Force andS. Hutton, (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004), pp. 155–181.

25 D. T. Whiteside, “Newton the Mathematician,” in Con-

10

temporary Newtonian Research, ed. Z. Bechler, (Dor-drecht: D. Reidel, 1982), pp. 109–127.

26 M. Goldish, Judaism in the Theology of Sir Isaac Newton,(Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1998).

27 L. M. Principe, “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy inLight of the New Historiography of Alchemy,” in New-

ton and Newtonianism, eds. J. E. Force and S. Hutton,(Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004), pp. 205–219; The Secrets of

Alchemy, (Chicago: U. of Chicago P., 2012). In my opin-ion, however, Principe overstates the continuity betweenwhat were later distinguished as “alchemy” and “chem-istry.” Metallic transmutation, an ongoing project in theWest for fifteen hundred years, lost nearly all credibilityin the course of the 18th century. The only plausible ex-planation of this that I can see is that the new culture ofopen scientific debate, which had only begun to grow inNewton’s lifetime, soon revealed that belief in such trans-mutation had been sustained by a mix of secrecy, confu-sion, and fraud.

28 W. R. Newman, Atoms and Alchemy, (Chicago: U. ofChicago P., 2006); “Newton’s Early Optical Theory andits Debt to Chymistry,” in Lumiere et vision dans les sci-

ences et dans les arts, eds. D. Jacquart and M. Hochmann,(Geneva: Droz, 2010), pp. 283–307.

29 W. R. Newman, “The Significance of Newton’s Alchemi-cal Research,” in New Dictionary of Scientific Biography,vol. 1, ed. N. Koertge, (Detroit: Charles Scriber’s Sons,2008), pp. 273–274. See also pp. 27–29 in I. B. Cohen andG. E. Smith, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge Compan-

ion to Newton, eds. I. B. Cohen and G. E. Smith, (Cam-bridge: Cambridge U. P., 2002), pp. 1–32.

30 A. Janiak, “Newton’s Philosophy,” The Stanford En-

cyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta, (winter2009), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/newton-philosophy

31 Commentary by eminent 20th-century physicists thatstresses the modernity of Newton’s approach includesA. Einstein, “The Mechanics of Newton and their In-fluence on the Development of Theoretical Physics,” inEinstein’s Essays in Science, (Mineola, NY: Dover, 2009[1934]), pp. 28–39; R. P. Feynman, The Character of

Physical Law, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965), ch.1; S. Chandrasekhar, Newton’s Principia for the Common

Reader, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), chs. 2, 19.32 Ref. 7, p. 105.33 For a brief and insightful overview of Newton’s anti-

Trinitarianism, see M. Wiles, Archetypal Heresy, (NewYork and Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1996), pp. 77–93. New-ton’s conclusion that the dogma of the Trinity reflecteda corruption of the early Christians’ simple faith by theHellenistic taste for metaphysics is consistent with theinterpretation later articulated by Gibbon, the great ra-tionalist historian: E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline

and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. II, (New York: Mod-ern Library, 2003 [1781]), ch. XXI.

34 On Newton’s heterodox religious views and the extent towhich he concealed them, see S. D. Snobelen, “Isaac New-ton, heretic: the strategies of a Nicodemite,” Brit. J. Hist.Sci. 32(4), 381–419 (1999).

35 J. Z. Buchwald and M. Feingold, Newton and the Origin

of Civilization, (Princeton: Princeton U. P., 2013).36 R. H. Popkin, “Newton’s Biblical Theology and His Theo-

logical Physics,” in Newton’s Scientific and Philosophical

Legacy, eds. P. B. Scheurer and G. Debrock, (Dordrecht:

Kluwer, 1988), pp. 81–97.37 Classical mechanics as it is taught today derives largely

from the efforts of Euler, Lagrange, and other Continen-tal scientists to deploy Leibniz’s analytical techniques inorder to facilitate and generalize the application of New-ton’s physical principles. This development —followingas it did the bitter and ideologically charged disputesamong Cartesians, Leibnizians, and Newtonians— seemsto me inexplicable except by its success in bringing a widerange of natural phenomena into a coherent and predic-tive mathematical account: i.e, by its ability to fulfill itsexplicit objective.

38 I. Newton, “Query 31,” in Opticks, 4th ed., (New York:Dover, 1979 [1730]), pp. 376–406. The relevant part ofhis query is quoted and annotated in H. G. Alexander(ed.), The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, (Manchester:Manchester U. P., 1956), pp. 175–183.

39 S. Tremaine, “Is the Solar System Stable?” The Institute

Newsletter, summer 2011, (Princeton: Institute forAdvanced Study), pp. 1, 6. http://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/

solar-system-tremaine40 Sociologist Robert K. Merton famously made a similar

argument. See I. B. Cohen (ed.), Puritanism and the Rise

of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis, (New Brunswick:Rutgers U. P., 1990).

41 Newton’s life offers a nearly ideal illustration of the“worldly asceticism” with which Weber credited the Puri-tans and some other Protestant sects; cf. M. Weber, TheProtestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, (London:Routledge, 2001 [1930]), ch. 4; R. Iliffe, “Self-experiment,Sex, and the Care of the Self,” lecture delivered at theCenter for Science, Technology, Medicine & Society ofthe U. of California, Berkeley, 11 Apr. 2013 http://www.

youtube.com/watch?v=r8aRRHKTxvc; Ref. 114.42 Newton’s anti-Trinitarianism might not be an insur-

mountable obstacle to locating his worldview within thesphere of Puritanism. Milton, a key figure in Cromwell’sregime, arrived at anti-Trinitarian views decades beforeNewton: M. Dzelzainis, “Milton and Antitrinitarianism,”in Milton and Toleration, eds. S. Achinstein and E. Sauer,(Oxford: Oxford U. P., 2010), pp. 171–185. In New Eng-land, the orthodox Calvinism of the Pilgrim Fatherswould evolve into an increasingly liberal Unitarianism:C. Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America,(Hamden, CT: Archon Press, 1976 [1955]).

43 J. A. Mills (ed.), Cromwell’s Legacy, (Manchester:Manchester U. P., 2012).

44 F. E. Manuel, A Portrait of Isaac Newton, (Cambridge,MA: Harvard U. P., 1968), p. 244.

45 A. R. Hall, Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought, (Cam-bridge: Cambridge U. P., 1992), p. 326.

46 Newton is frequently identified as the first scientistknighted by the British monarch (see, e.g., Ref. 5). YetFrancis Bacon, an early advocate of experimental science,had been knighted in 1603. Christopher Wren, sometimeSavilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, was knightedin 1673. Bacon held high political offices and Wren wasan eminent architect, so that their knighthoods probablyhad little to do with their scientific pursuits. But Newton’sknighthood was probably not intended as recognition ofhis science either.

47 P. Le Neve, Le Neve’s pedigrees of the knights made by

King Charles II, King James II, King William III and

11

Queen Mary, King William alone, and Queen Anne, ed.G. W. Marshall, (London: Mitchell & Hughes, 1873).

48 Ref. 7, pp. 624–626.49 P. Le Neve, letter to Isaac Newton dated 24 Nov. 1705,

published in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, vol.IV, ed. J. F. Scott, (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1967),pp. 460–461.

50 “Bart.” is the traditional abbreviation used after the nameof a baronet. Baronetcies are the only hereditary honorsgranted by the British Crown that are not titles of no-bility. Both knights and baronets are styled “Sir,” butknighthood is not inheritable.

51 C. W. Foster, “Sir Isaac Newton’s Family,” Reports andPapers of the Architectural and Archæological Societiesof the County of Lincoln, County of York, Archdeaconriesof Northampton and Oakham, and County of Leicester39(1), 1–62 (1928).

52 A yeoman owned the land that he farmed. According tothe prevailing conventions, he ranked above laborers, ar-tisans, and husbandmen, who owned little or no land oftheir own, and below gentlemen, who owned enough landto live on the rent thereof, without having to work at all.

53 K. A. Baird, “Some influences upon the young Isaac New-ton,” Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 41(2), 169–179 (1987).

54 D. Brewster, Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discov-

eries of Sir Isaac Newton, 2nd ed., vol. II, (Edinburgh:Edmonston and Douglas, 1860), pp. 419–425. This reportis wholly based on hearsay. Brewster (known as a scientistfor his pioneering work on optical polarization) was New-ton’s first serious biographer, but some of his contempo-raries and most subsequent historians have criticized histreatment of Newton as “hero-worship” (see Ref. 4). Itis natural that Brewster, a proud Scot, should have beeneager to claim Newton as a countryman.

55 A. R. Hall, Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought, (Cam-bridge: Cambridge U. P., 1992), pp. 2, 305, 379.

56 http://www.flickr.com/photos/overton_cat/

2455472090/ (accessed 28 Jul. 2013)57 D. Gjertsen, The Newton Handbook, (London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul, 1986), pp. 525–526.58 T. Wotton, “Newton of Barrs-court, Gloucestershire,” in

The English Baronetage, vol. III, part I, (London: Tho.Wotton, 1741), pp. 145–149.

59 J. Guillim, A Display of Heraldry, 6th ed., ed. G. Macken-zie, (London: for R. and J. Bonwicke and R. Wilkin, inSt. Paul’s Church-Yard, and J. Walthoe and Tho. Ward,in the Temple, 1724), p. 142; S. Newton, The diary of

Samuel Newton, ed. J. E. Foster, (Cambridge: CambridgeAntiquarian Soc., 1890), p. vi.

60 “Arms of Isaac Barrow,” Wren Library Tour, http://

www.trin.cam.ac.uk/index.php?pageid=499 (accessed28 Jul. 2013)

61 C. Johnson, (identified in this edition as Daniel De-foe), A General History of the Pyrates, ed. M. Schon-horn, (Mineola, NY: Dover, 1999 [1724]), pp. 68,226, 234, 352; D. Cordingly, Under the Black Flag,(New York: Random House, 1996), pp. xix–xx, 114–119. See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/

File:Every,Henry.JPG (accessed 28 Jul. 2013)62 Ref. 26, p. 80.63 A. R. Hall, Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought, (Cam-

bridge: Cambridge U. P., 1992), pp. 198–200, 344–348.Rob Iliffe refers to Newton’s approach in these matters asa “counter-allegorical hermeneutic.”114

64 W. R. Newman and L. M. Principe, “The Chymical Lab-oratory Notebooks of George Starkey,” in Reworking the

Bench, eds. F. L. Holmes, J. Renn and H.-J. Rheinberger,(Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2003), pp. 25–41.

65 D. Levitin, “Scholarly and Scholastic Contexts for New-ton’s General Scholium,” talk delivered at the confer-ence Isaac Newton’s General Scholium to the Principia:science, religion and metaphysics, U. of King’s Col-lege, Halifax, 24–26 Oct. 2013. http://isaacnewton.ca/general-scholium-symposium/

66 On the interpretation given to a similar heraldic deviceby John Newton (1725–1807), the abolitionist clergymanwho authored the popular hymn “Amazing Grace,” seeR. Southey, letter to John Rickman dated 31 Jan. 1836,in Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey, vol. IV,ed. J. W. Warter, (London: Longman, Brown, Green,Longmans & Roberts, 1856), pp. 432–433; Notes andQueries (ser. 5) 8(206), 445 (1877).

67 R. Bentley, “Chiral: A Confusing Etymology,” Chirality22(1), 1–2 (2010).

68 H. J. Morowitz, Entropy and the Magic Flute, (New Yorkand Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1993), pp. 7–11.

69 T. McMillen and A. Goriely, “Tendril Perversion in Intrin-sically Curved Rods,” J. Nonlinear Sci. 12(3), 241–281(2002).

70 See, e.g., D. C. Walker (ed.), Origins of Optical Activity

in Nature, (Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier, 1979),p. vii; C. C. Gaither and A. E. Cavazos-Gaither (eds.),Gaither’s Dictionary of Scientific Quotations, 2nd ed.,(New York: Springer, 2012), p. 2455.

71 R. Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, trans. V. R. Millerand R. P. Miller, (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991 [1983]), pp.242–243.

72 I. Newton, “De Gravitatione,” in Philosophical Writings,ed. A. Janiak, (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 2004), pp.12–39.

73 I. Newton, Queries 25, 26, and 29, in Opticks, 4th ed.,(New York: Dover, 1979 [1730]), pp. 354–361, 370–374.For a critical appraisal of Newton’s work on birefringence,see D. Brewster, Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Dis-

coveries of Sir Isaac Newton, 2nd ed., vol. I, (Edinburgh:Edmonston and Douglas, 1860), pp. 187–190. Here Brew-ster’s commentary is particularly interesting, as it con-cerns a scientific subject on which he was a leading expertand original contributor.

74 For an overview of Newton’s notions about the micro-scopic structure of matter, see A. E. Shapiro, “Newton’soptics and atomism,” in The Cambridge Companion to

Newton, eds. I. B. Cohen and G. E. Smith, (Cambridge:Cambridge U. P., 2002), pp. 227–255.

75 C. Truesdell, review of I. Szabo’s Geschichte der mecha-

nischen Prinzipien, in An Idiot’s Fugitive Essays on Sci-

ence, (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984 [1980]), pp. 254–265.

76 R. N. Wilson, Reflecting Telescope Optics, 2nd ed., vol. I,(Berlin: Springer, 2004), ch. 1.

77 Ref. 35, pp. 266, 346.78 A similar confusion accounts for the north-south reversal

of all constellations except Orion on the zodiac painted byPaul Helleu on the vaulted ceiling of Grand Central Ter-minal, in New York City. See New York Transit Museumand A. W. Robins, Grand Central Terminal, (New York:Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 2013), p. 90.

79 I. Kant, “On the First Ground of the Distinction of Re-

12

gions in Space,” in The Philosophy of Right and Left, eds.J. van Cleve and R. E. Frederick, (Dordrecht: Kluwer,1991 [1768]), pp. 27–33.

80 H. G. Alexander, “The Problem of Space and Time,”in The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, (Manchester:Manchester U. P., 1956), pp. xxxii–lv.

81 Kant’s views later evolved into his mature belief —famously defended in his Critique of Pure Reason of1781— that absolute time and space are not features ofthe external world, but rather the necessary forms of hu-man intuition. See Ref. 80, pp. xlviii–xlix, and J. V. Buro-ker, “The Role of Incongruent Counterparts in Kant’sTranscendental Idealism,” in The Philosophy of Right and

Left, eds. J. van Cleve and R. E. Frederick, (Dordrecht:Kluwer, 1991), pp. 315–339.

82 L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, (Lon-don: Routledge, 2001 [1921]), sec. 6.36111.

83 A. F. Mobius, “On Higher Space,” in The Philosophy of

Right and Left, eds. J. van Cleve and R. E. Frederick,(Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991 [1827]), pp. 39–41.

84 J. van Cleve, “Right, Left, and the Fourth Dimension,”in The Philosophy of Right and Left, eds. J. van Cleveand R. E. Frederick, (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991 [1987]),pp. 203–234.

85 G. B. Kauffman and R. D. Myers, “Pasteur’s Resolutionof Racemic Acid: A Sesquicentennial Retrospect and aNew Translation,” Chem. Educator 3(6), 1–18 (1998).

86 J. Gal, “The Discovery of Biological Enantioselectivity:Louis Pasteur and the Fermentation of Tartaric Acid,1857—A Review and Analysis 150 Yr Later,” Chirality20(1), 5–19 (2008).

87 J. D. Bernal, Science and Industry in the Nineteenth Cen-

tury, (Oxford and New York: Routledge, 2011 [1953]), pp.v–xi, 181–219.

88 L. Pasteur, “Observations sur les Forces Dissymetriques,”in Œuvres de Pasteur, vol. I, ed. L. P. Vallery-Radot,(Paris: Masson et Cie., 1922 [1874]), pp. 360–363.

89 U. Meierhenrich, Amino Acids and the Asymmetry of Life,(Berlin: Springer, 2008).

90 D. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles, 2nded., (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2008), sec. 4.4.1.

91 H. Georgi, The Physics of Waves, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, 1993), ch. 12.

92 Particle physicists distinguish between “helicity,” whichcorresponds to the handedness of a particle as seen bya given observer, and “chirality,” which is independentof the observer. Helicity and chirality are equivalent onlyfor massless particles, which travel at the speed of light.For a simplified discussion, see Ref. 90, sec. 9.7.1. Tech-nically, a relativistic quantum field may be characterizedby a pair of positive integers, (nL, nR), corresponding tothe respective dimensionalities of two representations ofthe rotation group. Spatial reflection exchanges nL andnR. Fields with (nL > 1, nR = 1) or (nL = 1, nR > 1)have definite chirality (left-handed or right-handed, re-spectively). Massive particles with spin correspond to amixture of chiralities. See T. Banks, Modern Quantum

Field Theory, (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 2008), ch.5.

93 J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B. R. Holstein, Dynam-

ics of the Standard Model, (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.,1994), ch. I.

94 See Ref. 90, secs. 4.4.3, 12.3, and references therein.95 P. Noguez, letter to the Abbe Conti, dated 19 Aug.

1726. Quoted in C. Albertan and A.-M. Chouillet, “Au-tographes et documents,” Recherches sur Diderot et surl’Encyclopedie 34, 213–230 (2003). See also Ref. 35, p.326.

96 Ref. 4, pp. 28–30.97 B. Burke, The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ire-

land, and Wales, (London: Harrison, 1884), pp. 731–732.98 W. Stukeley, Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton’s life,

ed. A. Hastings White, (London: Taylor & Francis,1936). A transcription of the 1752 manuscript is avail-able at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_

Sir_Isaac_Newton%27s_life (accessed 28 Jul. 2013)99 Edmund Turnor had a memorial to the Newton family

installed within the Colsterworth church. It showssimilar heraldic symbols to those in Stukeley’s engrav-ing (Fig. 5). See “Memorial to the Newton family inColsterworth church,” Colsterworth and District ParishCouncil, http://parishes.lincolnshire.gov.uk/

ColsterworthandDistrict/imageDetail.asp?id=71858

(accessed 28 Jul. 2013); E. Turnor, Collections for the

History of the Town and Soke of Grantham, (London:W. Miller, 1806), p. 154.

100 M. Keynes, The Iconography of Sir Isaac Newton to 1800,(Woodbridge, UK and Rochester, NY: Boydell Press,2005), pp. 34–35.

101 S. Webb (ed.), A Guide to Trinity College Chapel, (Cam-bridge: Trinity College, 2013 [2010]), pp. 11–12.

102 N. Stephenson, Quicksilver, (New York: William Morrow,2003), p. 151.

103 The Lancaster Herald of Arms in Ordinary, Mr. RobertNoel, could find no surviving instance of a coat of armsdrawn or used by Newton personally, and that armigers ofthe period might not have been careful about details suchas which bone was shown surmounting the other. B. Juby,personal communication, 10 Oct. 2013.

104 J. Martin, “Turnor, Edmund (bap. 1754, d. 1829),” inOxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford: Ox-ford U. P., 2004). Online ed. May 2006, http://www.

oxforddnb.com/view/article/27887 (accessed 28 Jul.2013)

105 E. Turnor, Collections for the History of the Town and

Soke of Grantham, (London: W. Miller, 1806), p. 171.106 Curiously, Ref. 105 mentions the 1798 restoration of Wool-

sthorpe Manor and the plaque installed at that time in theroom where Newton was born (p. 156), and is otherwisescrupulous in documenting local inscriptions and monu-ments, yet fails to mention the tablet of Fig. 2. Did theyounger Mr. Turnor have qualms about the chirality ofthe coat of arms depicted there?

107 A bastard child who had been acknowledged as such couldadopt the father’s arms, but only after adding a suit-able difference to avoid infringing on the privileges of thefather’s legitimate descendants. Various different markscould be used for that purpose, but from about the 15th tothe 18th centuries the bend sinister was the most commonin English heraldry and it increasingly became associatedwith bastardy in the public mind. See C. Given-Wilsonand A. Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England,(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), pp. 51–53.

108 In the Gregorian calendar, not adopted in Britain until1752, Newton’s birthday was 4 January. Newton workedon an alternative proposal for reforming the civil and ec-clesiastical calendars, never carried out. See A. Belenkiyand E. Vila Echague, “History of one defeat: reform of

13

the Julian calendar as envisaged by Isaac Newton,” NotesRec. R. Soc. 59(3), 223–254 (2005).

109 A. Einstein, foreword to I. Newton, Opticks, 4th ed., (NewYork: Dover, 1979 [1931]), pp. lix–lx.

110 That Newton worked before many of the conventions ofmodern science (regular publication, professionalized peerreview, error analysis, etc.) had been established, coupledto his portrayal by De Morgan, Manuel, Westfall, andother biographers who lent more credence to Newton’senemies than to his friends, have caused some leading sci-entists to deal hypercritically with Newton in recent years.See Ref. 5 and S. L. Glashow, “The errors and animadver-sions of Honest Isaac Newton,” Contr. Sci. 4(1), 105–110(2008).

111 A. Cook, “Success and failure in Newton’s lunar theory,”

Astron. Geophys. 41(6), 21–25 (2000).112 M. Nauenberg, “Newton’s perturbation methods for

the three-body problem and their application to lu-nar motion,” in Isaac Newton’s Natural Philosophy, eds.J. Z. Buchwald and I. B. Cohen, (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2001), pp. 189–224; review of N. Koller-strom’s Newton’s Forgotten Lunar Theory, J. Hist. As-tron. 32(2), 162–168 (2001).

113 This was J. E. E. Bessler, alias Orffyreus, whose workis surveyed in A. Jenkins, “The mechanical career ofCouncillor Orffyreus, confidence man,” Am. J. Phys.81(6), 421–427 (2013) [arXiv:1301.3097 [physics.hist-ph]].

114 R. Iliffe, High priest of nature, to appear